Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
05-10-2001 Planning Commission Meeting Packet
IV. Public Hearings CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA Thursday, May 10, 2001 - 7:00 PM 7:00 I. Call To Order /Approval of Agenda II. Approve Planning Commission Minutes - April 12, 2001 (l) 7:05 III. Visitors/ Public Comment This is an opportunity for the public to address the Commission with questions or concerns not on the agenda. Please limit comments to three minutes. A. Walgreen's Pharmacy Conditional Use Permit, Variance and Site Plan Review: To consider a conditional use permit request, variance and site plan review for construction of a Walgreen's Pharmacy at 6061 Osgood Ave. N. (2) B. Village Area -East Rezoning Request: To consider rezoning of the Village Area -East from R -2, Low and Medium Density Residential to R -1, Single Family Residential. (3) 8:15 V. New Business VI. Old Business VII. Informational A. Highway 36 Subarea Study VIII. Adjournment Upcoming Meetings: June 14, 2001 - Regular Meeting - 7:00 PM Council Representative: May - Commissioner Wasescha June - Commissioner Runk f • Visitors: None. Public Hearings: CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Thursday, April 12, 2001 F R 1 Call To Order: Chair Vogt called the meeting to order at 7:00 .m. Present: p Commissioners Hedlund, Runk, and Wasescha. Staff Present: City Planner Richards chards and Council Liaison McComber. Absent: Commissioner Dwyer and Community Development Director Danielson. ielson. Approval of Agenda: Commissioner Wasescha, seconded by Commissioner Hedlund, d, moved to approve the Agenda as presented. 4 -0. Approval of March 8, 2001 Minutes: Commissioner Runk, seconded by Commissioner Hedlund, moved to approve the minutes with typographical corr ' correction to sentence 10 under section A on page 2, changing Runk to Dwyer. Carried 4 -0. A. 5525 Memorial Ave. N. - Request for Planned Unit Development and General Plan Approval: To consider a request for planned unit development and general plan approval to construct an office/warehouse building. City Planner Richards provided an overview of his report for the proposed project of construction two office /warehouse buildings at 5525 Memorial Ave. N. within the Kern Center. Chair Vogt opened the hearing for public comment at 7:13 p .m. Steve Continenza of DDD, LLC was present and explained the lan for parking, noted p p g that the units would be constructed as rental units, provided concrete samples for the e building exterior and addressed questions regarding signage e illumination. � John Kern - 5469 Stillwater Blvd. N. expressed his p concern that adequate landscaping be installed and for lighting that does not produce glare. Commissioner Hedlund, seconded by Commissioner Wasescha, moved to close the public hearing at 7:23. Carried 4 -0. Discussion ensued as to lighting, landscaping, entrance access, phasing, storm water pond requirements and signage issues. Commissioner Hedlund, seconded by Commissioner Runk, moved to Y recommend the City Council approve the request of the CUP/PUD and site plan, subject to the conditions of the April 5, 2001 City Planner report, with the wording of condition number 4 amended. Carried 4 -0. Planning Commission Minutes April 12, 2001 Page 2 of 5 The conditions recommended for approval are as follows: 1. The City Council grants flexibility to consider the front of the lot to be the side abutting Memorial Ave. N. 2. Building elevations are revised to note the proposed colors of the ainted concrete block and trim. The primary p p ary color must be a soft, warm, earth tone. Color samples must be submitted for City review and approval. 3. Building #2 is revised to include at least one stepped back break in the facade that is similar to Building #1. 4. The landscape plan for the entire property, including all phases and ponding p p ding area if not required by the watershed district, is subject to review and approval of the City Arborist. Landscaping must pP tY p g ust include screening of trash enclosures and loading areas. 5. Details of the proposed wall lights are submitted and are compliant with Section 401.15.7 of the Zoning Ordinance. 6. Wall signage must not exceed 64 square feet for each business. If a monument sign is proposed, plans must be submitted showing that the sign does not exceed 50 square feet. The plans are subject to City review and approval. 7. All grading, drainage and utility plans shall be subject to review and approval of the City Engineer. 8. Watershed District approval is required. 9. A phasing plan is required and is subject to City review and approval. 10. If Phase 2 does not begin within three years of PUD approval or if the plans substantially change, approval of Phase 2 will be cancelled and the project must go through the review process again. 11. A development agreement will be required between the City and developer subject to review and approval of the City Attorney. 12. Comments of the Planning Commission, City Council and other City Staff. Commissioner Runk, seconded by Commissioner Hedlund moved that City Council approval recommend approval of the front of the lot to be the side abutting Memorial Ave. N. Carried 4 -0. �1 • • • Planning Commission Minutes April 12, 2001 Page 3 of 5 B. Motor Fueling Facility - Request for Conditional Use Permit, Planned Unit Development and Possible Sign Variances: To consider a request for conditional q ditlonal use permit, planned unit development and possible sign variances for a motor fueling facility near Rainbow Foods at 5801 Neal Ave. N. City Planner Richards provided an overview of his report as to the request to q allow construction of a motor fueling facility in the parking lot of the existin g Oak Park Po nds shopping center. Chair Vogt opened the hearing for public comment at 7:31 p .m. Leon Opatz and Steve Schwanke of RLK- Kuusisto, Keith Ulstad of Oppidan, Rainbow alnbow Management and Rainbow Vice President of Construction were resent and addressed ddressed the Commission as to various facets of the proposed ro'ect and its operation. p J Additionally, the applicant and their associates addressed the conditions established within the City Planner's report. Discussion commenced as to catch basin placement, hours of operation, signage gnage number and illumination, design of pump island and ADA requirements, kiosk sk monitoring, building materials, semi -truck loading area, hours of delive ry and tras h maintenance. Commissioner Runk, seconded by Commissioner Wasescha moved to close the public hearing at 8:22 p.m. Carried 4 -0. Discussion ensued as to the matters of the conditions of the lannin report and P g p amendments of language to conditions number 6, 8 and 10 were made. Commissioner Runk, seconded by Commissioner Hedlund, moved to recommend City approval of the • • Council a pp e request for CUP/PUD for a motor fueling facility in the parkin in center, near parking area at Oak Park Ponds shopping g ear Rainbow Foods, with amendments to the language of planner's report conditions number 6, 8 and 10. Carried 4 -0. Discussion commended as to the request for signage variance in that six small signs requested rather than one were being q large per allowable sizing. Issues of discussion included design, size and signage placement, hardship demonstration, and structure e placement reasoning. Commissioner Runk, seconded by Commissioner Vogt, moved to recommend City Council approval of the variance as requested and per the conditions, includin g those amended, of the planning report. Carried 4 -0. Planning Commission Minutes April 12, 2001 Page 4 of 5 The specific conditions of the April 5, 2001 Planner's report, including g those amended, were recommended for approval as follows: 1. Both the catch basins and existing storm water and shall be improved proved to prevent and treat fuel spillage prior to their entrance into the City's system. ty The drainage plans shall be subject to the review and approval of the City ty Engineer. 2. Access to this site is subject to the review and approval of the City ty Engineer. 3. The landscape plan shall be subject to final review and approval by the City Arborist. 4. Prior to installation of the proposed signs, the applicant must receive approval of a variance for the number of signs requested. 5. The applicant shall submit and receive approval of detailed lighting and photometric plan that demonstrates that the lights from the proposed canopy are in conformance with the outdoor lighting standards in Section 401.15.8.7 of the Zoning Ordinance. 6. The applicant shall submit color renderings and material samples that at demonstrate the kiosk and canopy will comply with the design ideline standards. 7. The City Engineer shall approve the design of the um islands. P p 8. Use of an outdoor speaker system is prohibited. 9. Should the applicant request and outdoor storage area, they must apply y pp y for and receive approval of an additional conditional use permit under Section 401.30.E.5 of the Zoning Ordinance. 10. The fuel service center must have an attendant on duty, • ty, at the kiosk, during all hours of operation. 11. The applicant shall designate an off-street loading area in conformance with Section 401.15.F.12 of the City Zoning Ordinance or schedule all gas deliveries during off -peak hours. 12. The owners of the site property (Lot 2, Block 1, Oak Park Ponds Addition) shall agree to a future private roadway access from the northeast corner of the property to the property directly to the east (Outlot A, Brackey 2nd Addition). 13. The applicant shall demonstrate that the site had adequate trash storage. This area should be inside the proposed building or in a trash enclosure that is constructed of the same materials as the building. 14. Any other conditions of the Planning Commission, City Council and City staff. • • Planning Commission Minutes April 12, 2001 Page 5 of 5 Chair Vogt called a recess. The meeting reconvened at 9:00 p .m. New Business: None. Old Business: A. Goal Setting - 2001 Follow Up: City Planner Richards and Council Liaison McComber informed the ' Commission that a goal setting workshop was held by the City Council and that members of the Parks and Planning Commissions were in attendance. Council Liaison McComber expressed that it was her belief that the goals established by the City Council would be lip tY a forma .ed and made available to the Commission for their review at their May or June meeting. y eettng. Informational/ Update: A. Public/ Institutional District: City Planner Richards informed the Commission that the City Council approved pproved the district with the Commissions March 27th recommendations; however, they requested that they approve any are to be rezoned by approved by the City Council Y ty prior to the Planning Commission initiating any change. Richards asked from comments from the Commission, who indicated that they were in consensus as to do nothing until such time directed by the City Council. B. Anticipated May Public Hearings: City Planner Richards updated the Commission as to hearings anticipated for their May meeting. . g C. Kern Center Parking: City Planner Richards informed the Commission that the City Council passed a resolution at their March 27,2001 meeting, on- street parking 58th prohibiting p king on the south side of 58 St., both sides of 55th St., and on the east side of Memorial Ave. N. The parking enforcement will be 24 hour and goes into effect July 1, 2001. Adjournment: Commissioner Hedlund, seconded by Commissioner Wasescha, moved to adjourn at 9:08 p.m. Carried 4 -0. Respectfully submitted, d r Julie A. Hultman Community Development Secretary al Approved by the Planning Commission: • ENCLOSURE "2 N � NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS INC COMMUNITY PLANNING - DESIGN - MARKET RESEARCH MEMORANDUM TO: Tom Melena FROM: Cynthia Putz -Yang / Scott Richards DATE: May 3, 2001 RE: Oak Park Heights — Walgreens; CUP, Variance, and Site Plan Review FILE NO: 798.02 — 01.04 BACKGROUND Semper Development, Ltd. is proposing to construct a 15,035 square foot Walgreens at the northeast corner of the intersection of Osgood Avenue and 60 Street, which is a frontage street north of Highway 36. The applicant is also requesting approval of a conditional use permit to allow a reduction in parking stalls. The applicant is also requesting a variance from the ten -foot parking setback requirement and screening requirement along the north property line. A funeral home currently exists on the site and is planned to be demolished. The subject site is zoned B -2, General Business District. Retail sales are a permitted use in the B -2 District. Attached for reference: Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Exhibit E Exhibit F Exhibit G Exhibit H Exhibit I Exhibit J Site Location Existing Conditions Plan Demolition Plan Site Plan Grading, Drainage, and Erosion Plan Utility Plan Lighting Plan Landscape Plan Building Elevations Applicant Letter and Parking Study 577 5 WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 555 ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA 5 54 1 6 PHONE 6 1 2- 595 -9636 FAX 612-595-9837 E -MAIL NAC@ WINTERNET.COM ISSUES ANALYSIS m ` Co"re ensive Plan. The subject property District � p operty �s within Planning District 4 as described in the Development Framework section of the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan states that redevelopment of the subject property is anticipated, and the Proposed Land Use Plan indicates reuse of the property for retail commercial or service business uses. The proposed retail commercial use of the property by Walgreens is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Adjacent Zoning and Land Uses. The property north of the subject site is zoned R -3, Multiple Family Residential and is occupied by a house structure that contains a dentist's office and residence. North of that structure is a residential duplex. The property east of the subject property is zoned R -B, Residential /Business Transitional and contains the Oak Ridge Place apartment complex. State Highway 36 is located south of the subject property. The land west of the subject property is zoned B -2, General Business and is occupied by a gas station and single family homes. Lot Performance Standards. The following table contains the required and proposed g q p p dimensions and setbacks for the subject site in the B -2 District. All of the proposed dimensions and setbacks listed below are compliant except the curb setback, which is discussed later in this report. Impervious Surface. The B -2 District does not have a minimum green space requirement; however, the only green space on the property that is not within required Y q setbacks is at the southeast corner of the building. This landscaped area is only 259 square feet in size, compared to 35,109 square feet of total buildable area. Calculated as a percentage, .7 percent of the buildable area of the lot is green space. This is an extremely small amount of green space and suggests that the use is too intense for the property. A smaller building that requires less parking would allow the creation of additional green space. The Middle St. Croix/Browns Creek Watershed Districts will also review the drainage requirements for this site and the allowable amount of impervious surface. Watershed District staff have not reviewed the plans yet, and their approval is required. 2 Lot Width (south) Setbacks Front (south) Side interior /comer (east/west) Rear (north) Parking/ Curb Required 15,000 sq. ft. 100 ft. 40 ft. 10 ft.interior /20 ft. corner 20 ft. 10 ft. Proposed 1.46 acres or 63,395 sq. ft. 190 ft. 122 ft 34 ft. interior /60 ft. corner 31 ft 0 ft. (north side) ISSUES ANALYSIS m ` Co"re ensive Plan. The subject property District � p operty �s within Planning District 4 as described in the Development Framework section of the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan states that redevelopment of the subject property is anticipated, and the Proposed Land Use Plan indicates reuse of the property for retail commercial or service business uses. The proposed retail commercial use of the property by Walgreens is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Adjacent Zoning and Land Uses. The property north of the subject site is zoned R -3, Multiple Family Residential and is occupied by a house structure that contains a dentist's office and residence. North of that structure is a residential duplex. The property east of the subject property is zoned R -B, Residential /Business Transitional and contains the Oak Ridge Place apartment complex. State Highway 36 is located south of the subject property. The land west of the subject property is zoned B -2, General Business and is occupied by a gas station and single family homes. Lot Performance Standards. The following table contains the required and proposed g q p p dimensions and setbacks for the subject site in the B -2 District. All of the proposed dimensions and setbacks listed below are compliant except the curb setback, which is discussed later in this report. Impervious Surface. The B -2 District does not have a minimum green space requirement; however, the only green space on the property that is not within required Y q setbacks is at the southeast corner of the building. This landscaped area is only 259 square feet in size, compared to 35,109 square feet of total buildable area. Calculated as a percentage, .7 percent of the buildable area of the lot is green space. This is an extremely small amount of green space and suggests that the use is too intense for the property. A smaller building that requires less parking would allow the creation of additional green space. The Middle St. Croix/Browns Creek Watershed Districts will also review the drainage requirements for this site and the allowable amount of impervious surface. Watershed District staff have not reviewed the plans yet, and their approval is required. 2 Traffic Circulation. A traffic circulation lan to include movement of delivery trucks ry son the site is required. If any of the proposed access points are not approved, the traffic circulation plan must be revised to reflect the change in access. Loading. The proposed loading area is on the north side of the building. No screening g is provided between this area and the residential use to the north. Because of the intensity of the development, the drive aisle north of the loading door runs alon g the property line without a setback and no green space exists in which to place screening. Variance. Section 401.15.E.8 of the Zoning Ordinance requires screening on a property with a business use that abuts a property zoned for residential use. The property located to the east is zoned R -B, Residential /Business Transitional and the property to the north is zoned R -3, Multiple Family Residential; therefore, screening is required along the north and east property lines. The applicant has requested a variance from the screening requirement along the north property line. The applicant has also requested a variance from the requirement that curbing and parkin g be set back 10 feet from the north lot line. Access. The applicant is proposing three access points. One proposed access is onto p 60 th p ro Street North and two proposed accesses are onto Osgood Avenue North (C.S.A.H. No. 24). County approval is required for the accesses onto Osgood Avenue. The southern access on Osgood Avenue is proposed as a right-in-only, is very close to the intersection with 60 th Street North, and may not be acceptable to the County. The access onto 60 th Street North requires approval by MNDOT. MNDOT may or may not approve this access in that the frontage roads are proposed to be rebuilt as part of the reconstruction of the Osgood Avenue /Highway 36 intersection. Except with special permission from the Zoning Administrator, curb cut openings are re required q u red to be a minimum of five feet from the side yard property line. The proposed northern curb cut on Osgood Avenue is on the north property line and shares an access with the ro e p p rtY to the north. The Bradshaw/Walgreens property has an existin g 12- foot -wide access easement on the adjacent property to the north. Staff recommends that the curb cuts for the two properties should be separated and the curb cut for the subject property e 1 p p rtY should be located at least five feet south of the north property line in conformance with the Zoning Ordinance. The curb cut is subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer. Zoning Ordinance Section 401.04.A.5 states that a variance from the terms of this Ordinance shall not be granted unless it can be demonstrated that: 1. Undue hardship will result if the variance is denied due to the existence of special conditions and circumstances which are peculiar to the land, structure, or building involved and which are not applicable to other lands, structures or buildings in the same district. a. Special conditions may include exceptional topographic or water conditions or, in the case of an existing lot or parcel of record, narrowness, shallowness, insufficient area or shape of the property. 3 b. Undue hardship cause by the special conditions and circumstances may not be solely economic in nature, if a reasonable use of the property exists under the terms of this Title. c. Special conditions and circumstances causing undue hardship shall not be a result of lot size or building location when the lot qualifies as a buildable parcel. 2. Literal interpretation of the provisions of this Ordinance would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this Ordinance or deny the applicant the ability to put the property in question to a reasonable use. 3. The special conditions and circumstances causing the undue hardship do not result from the actions of the applicant. 4. Granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Ordinance to other lands, structures or buildings in the same district under the same conditions. 5. The request is not a result of non - conforming lands, structures or buildings in the same district. 6. The request is not a use variance. 7. The variance requested is the minimum variance necessary to accomplish the intended purpose of the applicant. 8. The request does not create an inconvenience to neighboring properties and uses. Staff believes that nothing about the subject property is unique in topography, dimensions, or area to create a hardship when the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance are applied. Additionally, properties north of the site have R -3 Zoning and residential uses. Therefore, screening of the back of the Walgreens building and screening of the loading area is especially important. Screening of Parking and East Property Line. Section 401.15.F.h.18 of the Zoning Ordinance requires all open off- street parking areas of five or more spaces to be screened and landscaped from residential districts and uses and the public right -of -way. Almost no landscaping is provided along the west property line and very few shrubs are included along the south property line. The landscape plan must include additional landscaping, including shrubs, along the west and south property lines to provide screening of the parking. Some space for screening exists along the east property line; however, the applicant is proposing only deciduous trees. The trees will provide very minimal screening at eye - level and will lose their leaves in the fall. This planting should be denser and contain a high percentage of evergreen trees and shrubs. Screening of the east side of the 4 • property is especially important because the drive - through is on this side of the building, and it is adjacent to a residential apartment building. Tree Replacement. Six significant ash trees are proposed to be removed, resulting in inches. g the loss of 90 caliper nches. The City Arborist has stated that additional significant trees will be removed, resulting in the loss of approximately 30 additional caliper inches of elm trees. The applicant is proposing to plat 31 trees to replace the lost trees. The tree replacement plan is subject to the review and approval of the City Arborist. Parking. Retail stores are required to provide at least one parkin g space for each 200 square feet of floor area. Floor area is determined by subtracting ten percent from the footprint of the one -story building. The building is 15,0035 square feet in size. After subtracting ten percent, the floor area is 13,531.5 square feet in size. The floor area divided by 200 is 67.7. Therefore, 68 parking spaces are required. The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to allow the parkin g to be reduced to 58 spaces. Section 401.15. F.9 of the Zoning Ordinance states that the City may . . tY Y issue a conditional use permit to reduce the number of required off - street arkin p g spaces when the use can demonstrate in documented form a need which is less than required. In such situations, the City may require land to be reserved for arkin p g development should use or needs change. The applicant has provided evidence, which is attached in Exhibit J, that h t e highest parking demand for a Walgreens store occurs on Saturday afternoon when the store requires 2.57 stalls per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. The applicant has stated that based on documented parking demand at other Walgreens locations, the proposed p p store would require 39 stalls to serve the peak parking demand. The applicant is proposing 58 stalls which results in 3.9 stalls per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area or .86 spaces for each 200 square feet of floor area. It has been suggested that the g drive - through alleviates some of the parking need; however, the City will not allow the drive- through area to be used for parking. The reduction in parking spaces may be adequate for the Walgreens use at the p resent time; however, a concern is that the property is proposed to be almost completely paved and no land is reserved for parking development should the use or needs change. A subsequent retailer or office use of the building could increase the parking demand on the site and the adjacent area. Snow Removal. The site has very little space for snow storage; therefore, a snow removal plan must be submitted. Building Height and Design Guidelines. The proposed one -story building is 30 feet tall, which does not exceed the maximum height of 35 feet. The primary exterior building material is brick. Some stucco is also used. These types of materials, in addition to glass windows, are allowed for a commercial building. The Oak Park Heights Design Guidelines require commercial buildings to contain at least 20 percent 5 glass on its facades. The south facade is compliant with 21.5 percent glass. The west facade contains the same amount of glass as the south facade but has a longer brick wall. The west facade is 14.6 percent glass and is, therefore, not compliant with the Design Guidelines. The south and west sides of the building are somewhat articulated with brick pilasters and a horizontal band of brick above the pilasters. The east and north elevations have no pilasters and are only broken up by the horizontal band. in summary, a design that visually breaks up the brick walls more than the current design would be more consistent with the Design Guidelines, and the west facade must contain a greater percentage of glass. Reducing the size of the building, while leaving the area of glass and stucco the same size would help the applicant to meet these goals. Lighting Plan. The demolition plan shows that the existing light poles on the property will be removed. A lighting plan has been submitted that includes 400 and 250 watt metal halide lamps in cutoff luminares. The lighting plan does not indicate how tall the poles are. The lights must not exceed 25 feet in height. Section 401.15.7.d of the Zoning Ordinance (outdoor lighting) states that light shall not exceed one foot candle measured from the centerline of a public street, nor shall light exceed four - tenths of a foot candle at any property line adjoining an adjacent property. Many locations along the north and east property lines exceed the maximum light level allowed and approach levels of up to 4 foot candles. Therefore, an unacceptable amount of light is falling on the properties to the north and east and the lighting plan must be revised. Signage. The Zoning Ordinance allows a pylon sign that is up to 30 feet tall and 150 square feet in size or 15 percent of the front building facade, whichever of the two is less. In this situation, 150 square feet is less than 15 percent of the front building facade. A 25 foot -tall pylon sign is proposed at the corner of 60 Street North and Osgood Avenue North. Due to the higher elevation of the site in relation to Highway 36 the applicant may wish to consider construction of a monument sign rather than a pylon sign. The signage on the pylon is in two pieces. The top sign is approximately 89 square feet in size. The bottom sign is an electronic reader board and is 42.5 feet in size. Electronic reader boards with flashing or intermittent lights or animation are not allowed. The total freestanding signage area is 131.5 square feet in size and, therefore, complies with the Zoning Ordinance but the electronic reader board is not allowed if it contains flashing, intermittent, or animated lights. The Zoning Ordinance allows 150 square feet of wall signage or 15% of the front building facade whichever is less. Because this is a corner lot, two walls signs are allowed. The total of the two signs may be a maximum of 150 square feet in size. Each of the proposed wall signs is 108 square feet in size and is, therefore, not compliant with sign regulations. Trash. The site plan illustrates a trash enclosure and recyclables area on the north side of the building. Details of the enclosures must be submitted. The enclosure materials must be consistent with the principal building materials. 6 • Grading, Drainage and Utility Plans. Grading, erosion control, drainage, and utility • plans have been submitted and are subject to the approval of the City Engineer. Significant filling of the site is proposed to raise the grade of the building pad. A seven to ten foot tall modular block retaining wall is proposed along the east property line and along the eastern end of the north property. Design of the retaining wall is subject to review and approval of the City Engineer. • • CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION Semper Development is proposing to construct a Walgreens Pharmacy at 6061 Osgood Avenue North and has requested approval of a CUP for reduced parking and a variance from setback and screening requirements. The applicant has not yet received approval from Washington County or MNDOT for the proposed accesses. Whether these access are approved will significantly impact the site plan. The Middle St. Croix/Browns Creek Watershed Districts all have not yet reviewed the development. Staff recommends that the City delay action on the application until County, State, and Watershed staff have reviewed the development and provided preliminary comments. A number of other issues exist with this development. Regarding the CUP, the proposed amount of parking may be adequate for the Walgreens use; however, no space is reserved for parking development in the future if the use or need changes. The buildable area of the property contains less than one percent green space. There is not a minimum green space requirement in the B -2 District; however, the minimum 20 percent standard for the B -3 District may be used as a guide. Curbing is not shown along the northern property line and is required. If the curbing were shown, the current placement of the drive aisle would not allow the curbing to meet the setback requirement of ten feet. The northern curb cut on Osgood Avenue does not meet the minimum setback requirement of five feet. No screening is provided along the north property line and is required. Minimal screening is provided along the east property line, and more screening is required. Parking areas are also minimally screened, and more screening is required. Lighting exceeds maximum standards at north and east property lines. The west building facade does not meet the minimum requirement of 20 percent glass. In order to meet setback and screening requirements, the building size needs to be reduced. Because this development has a number of issues and lacks direction from the County and MNDOT on accesses and the Watershed Districts on the allowable impervious surface, we do not recommend approval of the site plan, variance, or CUP at this time. We recommend that the Planning Commission request additional information from the applicant and direct the applicant to revise the site plan to make it compliant with the City Zoning Ordinance. pc: Kris Danielson 7 1 . o r :�.441 11.14 ` ♦ rf 17 t+� 1; 1/11 1, . 11141 ttl• �r.i .r.rt+ ou1111••I.••>t�ti fl�D4�or � laduc_tt mimp +fi mf,Tirf+i N 11 +SnlNft t :•'x144 r te• 1,111ili1 1 .It 1 4.14•'1., 114111/111 �lt't 42,91 41,1 ^�i:+4 t * 11141111111 �- �- + 11 11,1h11� i� { It` 4 1.90111 {1111 N►i111 1111 �I�III ,i111 i 4i"' ' �1���11 /rllrllla i1S11� �/Ilulf►tr, ,.. ., 1 + ;,: 1 11 1 10 ,:" t 1111 �l��� � � � l'�511 ` �1 uuill 1,, :1� ' � ' �t'►' �, 111411 ,1111 tl` ^ _ .., •.1 `�� �1 1 111111 ti 11 ( �411,4 1►tlp:; +r1, " `VI oimplifiNir 11 ,E :•. • 1 11 . pm 11 an (i�ll` 11111111111; 1f I! t t" 1 ;111 Lt' !1111411111 1101114111 1111,1 411411,x1 s. 111 � . . lcsi,dlll,►l' 1 1 111:1• t:1 �1t 11111 f1 1 t��':�, ;,lt t �' Ifr111i114uu11,1 4 Illaft @1141 Y� 111441 •114111 1:1441 4111111111'1 1414 1101111 I 1 I Irl 111111111 ^1 411111111 .14.4111111. 1 111146111 (1111111111 1111111111h 11111111111■ ;11141 1114 111 1111. 111(111.111, ,111 '111 11,I IlWIt 1 11111111111 Ilhlllm 1411114111 4 111111 1 11 1, I1 U IU14 It (t114 :i 411 :1111 11 1.1111011111 itl llt 411114 t ►) I+ tlllll li III 011111111111111111. 111111111111 111111411111 II +t rill!! r 1,11 !1 G1 1{1 lU 111111 111111.1111, 111111111111 111111111,11 ,111111 �;111 I+,ttt C1.1�1 II ' 1I111ti 11 `1 HUll 1 NI11)U 11 1 II IIlu111 1 it11 a - 1114. . ��,i11�1n1illl11111�! 1111/ 1t1 : 1H/11/11/ t!!t11111/1 11111111111 1111111114 11111111111 1+111111111 111114111111 Q alt 0 V EXHIBIT A �r� O 1 U A Vigis‘:% 1 mit Mt I . 1 • L 1 .1 A� al „M (Irv11 ►t�lv� 'xa It! IN1at11 011VOVA � - 1� 4L.O911'N I I ma 104 AO5 IS'SOb•MN Ip beb,401 b NKr(' ►u1V0 'xl I DOD D ❑ ❑ ❑ 40� 4os ) bt COb +AM b,b0b•d01 . NSv9 NOlva 11 00°59'.1.1" , 990 ' e. / • • , 1 if ihd 1 11 i I n/ WI? aaaa s�� Cob w 1 € M ; w' , ,•' Co " °Witt 'ON ',CO YU 1N IVO MAN AtlYINVi y I 1 1 ♦1 I + Ltb tam 3d 1H3J>li1/i Ill I run .. = r_ d tr- M11�/A111c 40 A1t *41 of `. ++vs a9120 MOO C - Hamar c G4 N1111JO11 '7110 '91 ONV Ct c101 40 T 1 'A LL' COb =ANI ,-, .00 90b -e0t 1lJ+ttian 'Y1 6 06 11 9 --- tzte -41 5 )--HluA aoopsA -- _. . ,, LC'bob -AN r: LO•100b KCVO 1101 ,10 11 - -� 47 -* e nb v e BULL N1124Y, 1000 "T ttON A NO O ! 1 ; .It. :1 • V., --4 m lb co risi 30'rCr I L e q\ A .. _.._._ t:1a12fIn o1a1i1 dan.a re 1 �:•� -+-� ' ._. . --- -tee to+►- ,� --!'� ,-- -- � G► 90b�dol ! f 0, %W./vs NfS:Y9 NO1VJ xi -- , - Ib 01, - .01 ►t-1 112fV 1 =v5 X� 6b10baAM u fL 9Ob -dol �`, I 0 Hj1YJ 'X1 - - --' I i cc Ob -I w I 9C' Ob� d0 1 a N15VA /4 J Va 'x1 -_ " I Lv 1 *r ,1 'a 100 L v5 L g .,0 • • • , f ...,,,• ,t4 tri 0 I S • ROCK CARDEN \ \ \ ---..„ \ \ \ ..................__ IS \\\ � �-. \, 1 \ fi t \` 'P � j�, / / • 1' Ex SA1 01 IN•t % 60 I 6. a�xor o - ..� , •j _ - . ... • r / -- EX. CATC / DASH TOP•90 .3 14V.90 , 73 , - - -• Ex. CATCH' P1 0 106.406 ?3 ) fNr401 '• Ex. CATCH TOP•906 /D N, NV•90740 `, • O'VCP (FIELD VERF rs = i - — 0S600b 9 r 2 2 2 y qp 9 OR ,mo w .. EX. STAR 1`►1 - 1p�+ • 900.05` w 903. �' COVER r1ARKEP sAN: - I �!•' . I •"" -- __ � rzS �� '- r __ _' 986 ' CATCH 0A5114 TOP•900.07 INV•404 57 .S. A.II.N t 0011•*IOIJ5 PARKN4 I EX. CATCH OAyN •" ' - •; ,,\ 101 � ItN.90� 24 1 112 l . r J • 1 =1 — -- �__� -- — _ , , rIE • 0 El IO • ❑❑❑ 90. .. O 1 loll if 111111111 1 I T:11 I g MN11: I 191 Tql1 a► c;A1CN BAFjMJ 700 01 NV•909, ; El POb ID 0§ 14g 'dire Ipli 1 sI j �r r Ex. CA14:1 tAS., 10I'•410 63 NV- 4 10610 4. 4 .\ ditiL IN; 410 111 1114 a om moo❑ coon 110 Pt"! ij i 4 g Or !IU! p �' i ;I ; il g +Ai i; i ig 40,) P.3 r tig ;i lgo 11 Ht I a did oo a �a i I NI a a 4 a a i a i1! x N I A i11aRe ®rot 11111=11EMEMPIMNIFINRIFFAIMPOPO e • P g L SIN �.H fq �►• ♦I�1 IM \ : I 00. V --- — 03600 NMeei4t. N d . VIII if ill 11,11 fis tit Ito - - - • • , tam, 11 ,1/41,7 l!p5 A Eta 101 ,4111PIef mote-nix, DD 1 1 DODO g IS'0 IC 1.01, Ail 10 00.2.00 I fiCY0 11.7.1:12 x *,, tm; ariyo amco cii .44 14,0,,c •,1 afitsigME-GO £01 snotuum icenort, I a a Or, a a 3 p a 90b. 401 1,4:10 44:41v3 )11 (714•O' re.'90,,101 14154461 03111,7 . )41 ----• 101 311124Vei 0104.11119 02014V RI U EE yll lx 1;1 1 2 CI' Ot PC 90b.d01 NSW 14.1V, 30'4V,1 6 4 a 0 — - -4T-1 4 41 09 9bili.Ati lb 06.401 A 4Iv •r1 jh X01'0 Irett — .00 1141211A 01 00,14 r 1 ,.----- ..'" \ Fl h 14. • • c� U is C; C) O O U N n) L) O O 6 IJ CJ C.) U U 2 V.J. C I i)� ^) n) C. Q)(0 1N I C., I \n v ,) in CJ in n W ,J oz, l G G v G U t) to w 4. ii.,,, 1) U O . n) G G �•J iJ rn X N 1: i?; co pi C) (.1 _ r)4) `) O C3 a O O v O c O O O o p 0 v 0 4 0 9 4 4 4 4 4 N 4 4 4 PP o v O U O O O O O O p O 4 O 4 O N n) to L., W i 4 4 O O O N N N N N O O O 6 O 4 4 O O O O 4 O 4 O O O ir O Cl l� O U O N N N N W W A i, D N A N v c, o/ c U O O U G N N w 0 C � U ` b;J I - a, w ,. a a J N ') �") ' l J N N N N p W a\ /- 1 A c,) N • _. . U1 / A W N N_ N i ' CO -0 a . .r A - N -- .._�_ -.. o- - -- N ( . A 01 O J \ \— W l,,) , - 0 � a N !V A � Y --'-- - -- ! G N .. , i01 !`) G - O\ 0\ A v a =- OSGOOD AVENUE NORTH leS A.H; NO. 24) W W N �J ca N A .. ---� --•- r- � O � � . � a � ■ n _ � J. .,) G p ) 'O C) C I1• 0 y o gi. _;:a _-.lo ':_s c, 2 .J w n) 7. f 1 r- ' /J U C) O :— ^) ^) G f j • D - i p O p 5 I I I ,6 9.0 O S `s ,v y Q� i. c.. , ' C) — • (A O A O V VI �! O 0\ �) 41 O O O 0 O O O O , O O O O Da a. .-.4 j) ..D 0\ A i , N n) — — i O U O O O O O O O O O • O O O O O O O O O O W u, A W G: f s A. CJ w ;a) N ti N W N N n) ., a O O 4 N G U _ n n C.) O 4 4 O O O O O O O O O in 0 O e p O O O O O O 4 O O O O O O U O V o O C O ,.l v -__ Al .. - --N is �. LJ ZJ f1 �J CU O _ s a Sa G O V o O U O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O U O O O c� C) c� C) �) 4 O O O O O O O O O O O O O - ~ — =- E N w W W N N N N N N N J CO A O Q\ Q\ !v ►'J I w y e 2 v '14 N • 1. O O - O0 O j N J � �.J • 7J �. 7 v !v .D .D 0, fit 1 1 N � st, l in w l_ w , . —I.? — c—.. 0 , , t _.:- - -.u. - � 3Za- �: a�.s�c".rw. rr°��".. .•- . _ a - - � - , , N on ig o g 4 4 N N 0\ n CJC)00 U O -0 iT in \ W N • � T ' Y,' • V� �yI V N \n 1 V% O O O ©0 1 a� CA CA O rJ 4- • -1 cJ W c il LI Rg ifg 2 060 3 1 O .❑ 3 2 if§ • r 1 9 ) cJ O ' 411 ) ` � 5 v �; J is r . -) J r ) W CI) C.1 cA CU c?, <) t (- U C� 4 ; ; ; CI 0 0 0 CJ p i i 3 3 3 ❑ ❑ ❑ a a 3 C. �k �8 0 h o Oe 1 a a a fi (17 'OH 'H'd'S'D) I�LIIOI�I FIf1NaAd QOODSO 3 a 3 3 z ii, e li < g Ir h o � o -ii 00 §! if < !Vi 1,1 iii 1 i 1 ill o : ii § ~ 1; g� a F5 5 h i A I * F 0 rieVO i i 0 i 1 rgi 2 ,, YX rx 11. i i w v v IL 0 he x boo 4 v s 1 lill VA; ai ; § !! II J ~ 0 000 6 g / ��� � .. ��� ;� +' _ ;: 4 >�, } N �J� '� Y , '�v N I, �' 1 � z l+ � �1 � •, t - f > ,t + �'�1�� + � il. _I'�III (ir j I Lun=+ ' I t 4i01 i p _. .__ � • V M . 2: w trit 0 0' M �� 0 a. � W K rn tiW 9 6 a h • • E1111111111111111111111111111111 E IIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIII g IIIIII111111IIIIIIIIIIIII11111 1= .�. �... �..�.�.. — -.T-1111111 IIIIII = H ►I► ,III►unni r iIit1 III 11111111111111111111 1 IIII III 1 I II III I IIIIIIIIII111111111IIIIIIIIIIIII m co X � L WALGENS EXTERIOR HldfiWAY 36 AT OSpOOD HIGHWAY 36 AT OSGOOD ELEVA ELEVATIONS • April 20, 2001 Kris Danielson Community Development Director Oak Park Heights 14168 Oak Park Heights PO Box 2007 Oak Park Heights, MN 55082 &ttgL llr LANDFORM MINNEAPOLIS • PHOENIX RE: Walgreens Pharmacy at Osgood Avenue and 60 Street North Dear Ms. Danielson: 650 BUTLER NORTH BUILDING 510 FIRST AVENUE NORTH MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55403 OFFICE: 612.252.9070 FAX: 612.252.9077 www.Iandform.net EXHIBIT J Landform, on behalf of the applicant, is pleased to submit this site lan application p pp ation for approval of a 15,035 square foot Walgreens at the northeast corner of the intersection on of Osgood Avenue and 60 Street. We are also requesting a conditional use q g permit to allow a reduction in the number of required parking stalls from 68 stalls to 58 stalls. Is. We have attached a parking study that was done in December 2000, which shows that the parking demand at Walgreens is well below the City requirements. The typical tY q tYp peak parking demand at a Walgreens occurs at 3:45 p.m. on weekdays and 12:15 .m Y p . on Saturdays. The highest parking demand occurs on Saturday afternoon when the Y store requires 2.57 stalls per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. Based in documented parking demand at other Walgreens locations, this store would require 39 stalls to serve q e e the peak parking demand. This is well below the City of Oak Park Heights Zoning y 9 g Ordinance requirements of 5 stalls per 1,000 square feet of floor area. Our request to allow 58 parking stalls would provide approximately 3.9 stalls per 1 000 square f Y p q feet of floor area, which is well above the documented demand at a typical Walgreens. reens. g The conditional use permit to allow a reduction in ' the number of required parking stalls complies with the standards outlined in Section 7 401.03A of the Oak Park Heights 401.03A(7) g s Zoning Ordinance as follows: 1. Relationship to the specific policies and provisions of the municipal comprehensive plan. p p The reduction in the number of parking stalls would allow redevelopment of this property as a new Walgreens Pharmacy. This type of retail use is permitted in the B -2 zoning district and is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The parking study shows that the 58 parking stalls would be more than adequate to serve this development. Kris Danielson Page 2 2. The conformity with present and future land uses in the area. The proposed Walgreens would be a high - quality retail building, which would be consistent with existing uses in the area. The reduction in required number of parking 9 stalls would have no effect on neighboring land uses. 3. The environmental issues and geographic area involved. There would be no significant environmental issues associated with the proposed redevelopment of this site. The reduction in the number of required parking spaces would allow the applicant to preserve more green space and provide the required q landscaping on this site. 4. Whether the use will tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. The proposed redevelopment would increase the value of the subject property and would have no negative impact on property values in the area. The reduction in the number of parking stalls would have no impact on property values. 5. The impact on character of the surrounding area. The redevelopment of this site as a Walgreens would be consistent with the character of the existing neighborhood and the reduction in the number of required parking stalls impact g would have no mpact on the neighborhood character. The high - quality retail building would be an asset to the neighborhood. 6. The demonstrated need for such use. 650 BUTLER NORTH BUILDING 510 FIRST AVENUE NORTH MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55403 OFFICE: 612.252.9070 FAX: 612.252.9077 www.landform.net Re: Walgreens Site Plan Application April 20, 2001 The proposed Walgreens will provide a basic retail service to the City of Oak Park Heights and will serve the needs of the local population. The proposed number of parking stalls exceeds the number of stalls needed to meet the peak parking demand for Walgreens. 7. Traffic generation by the use in relation to the capabilities of streets serving the property. The traffic generated by the proposed Walgreens would be consistent with the traffic demand expected at the intersection of Osgood Avenue and 60 Street. Furthermore, the attached parking study shows that the parking and traffic associated with the Walgreens Pharmacy would be less than the traffic generated by other retail uses. We respectfully request approval of the site plan and conditional use permit for the Walgreens Pharmacy, based on the finding that the proposal would comply with all ordinance requirements. - Kris Danielson Page 3 Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Yq Sincerely, LANDFORM* Kendra Lindahl, AICP /kI COPY: File SD01025 John Kohler ENCL: Parking Study Y Plans and Application * Landform Engineering Company doing business as Landform 650 BUTLER NORTH BUILDING 510 FIRST AVENUE NORTH MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55403 OFFICE: 612.252.9070 FAX: 612.252.9077 www.Iandform.net Re: Walgreens Site Plan Application April 20, 2001 04/19/01 09:47 FAX 612 332 2428 SEMPER DEVELOPMENT LTD. JAN-93 -2001! 1104 SEMRER DRAKE &ASSOCIATES INC- December 12, 2000 0 002 3e3 825 7200 P.16/41 Ms, Kathy Okrong eY SEMPER ELOPMENT LTD. One Tabor Center 1200 17th Street, Suite 5TO Denver, CO 80202 Subject: Walgreen e pharmacy Anaheim Parking Study Dear Ms. Qkrorg INTRODUCTION The ' pleased to provide SEMPER TES, INC. (FKJK) is p 1 �K .1 K � As���A � ltyatgreerts t�hartn � DE L of study for the propos eh gym. the l,T� . t his ping Y Street in the City of An D��IBL.OQE' ue and La Palma is t corner of Euclid Avenue the proposed site plan is It the Sout s. attached Exhibit A and p • �� site is shown on the attached of on Exhibit B. Pharmacy with a • �,'l g square foot �t algreen s • would consist of a 14. � provides for parking drive proposed prod retail building. The site plan p spaces � 04� square feet ret�at spaces based upon � -� � ts and a 7 code requires 118 spa wevet', the Anaheim parking . stalls; ho retail busld�ngs. usand square feet tt�o t of ro project, based upon a required Paling for the p ] . 7,040 d is �a e�t�ivate �e -� r aired fir the 7,10 The urpose of thl$ stu Y The parks � � i�« p arabje �algceer�s Parrnd. � r� code (AppQfld ) parking survey of comparable the City of Anaheim's parking p 9 � � is based upon � evaluate this p�jec� s u sr� feet btu ttdjn9 t�ii building. i c� order' to en fa q thousand square feet of retail � comparable VValgTe R K h as per thou parking demand study fo P for an extensive pa '� � $ has been conducted ilti has prepared detailed parking survey d facilities in Southern California. t A , . o e�aivate parking demand ties located during e of the facility in order t • e during . # �e p eak hour us 9 was conducted at each sit three sites The parking surrey ova cam comparable fafacilities. � establish peak parking demand for a based upon �' a condition in order to esta • l weekday and �atur�d Y a tYRi� facility of comparable size. Yp f this study are outlined The results of the surVeY have been reviewed and the findings in this repot; AF�tCt�C�uST1CAL ENGINEERING TRANSPORTATION PLANNING • GIS TR Fax: �9a9) 474 - x 902 c Suits �9Q • ' Newport Beach, CA 92660 � Phone: (949) 474 -080 1601 Dove ..cr�e�. 04/19/01 09:48 FAX 612 332 2428 SEMPER DEVELOPMENT LTD. JAN 1 11 04 SEMPER DRAKE 0003 303 825 7200 P.17/41 04/19/01 09:48 FAX 612 332 2428 SEMPER DEVELOPMENT LTD. ZRN-OZ-2001 11:04 SEWER DRAKE LA PALMA AVENUE Q004 303 925 7200 P.18/41 SITE PLAN • rrt C 0 rn r rn '04/19/01 09:48 FAX 612 332 2428 SEMPER DEVELOPMENT LTD. JAN -03 -2001 11 :05 • SEWER DRAKE 005 3 s25 7200 P.19/41 J9 �S ro���ed • a � s are rrnaoy .� oilowing ens pha • study, the f � algae '�� d upon this 4 square foot i code of �.5 pa 3 ase p 4,�0 e�m park 9 d �r a Wpical a # man demafl fl the ju 8s. e pac4ctr�� i1 less � for rata 1, s substant�a y foot of building f W atg�et� spaces i p d s quare #� tor this p� Q eak per tnou�an deman Saturday. the p s aces p arldnQ a Sa urd �/ peak p . th e peak p s d . • and tl�a aloe a wee 37 space a utilized ak upon the parking weekday and k� n9 spat glad to a Pe wee upo n a w► 3 to s4 par - . d. ThS related 2. yes dung ranged frore � yes u���e et of buildir�g way rd 34 ranged nq a Ong spaces square feet parking demand to V p theus weekday p d range '� spaces per F on a de�ae .anate1� �.�� P n d �� ;15 Saturday of app�� weekdays and dem and on the w psd`i g a t 3:46 P d occur erk�n� dean �� ,Qa� square Peak Q - uses U nder � 3. T eta�1 u� n Saturdays Q f Ana 'A for the Cif Appandti�c • ' aE'. u1C����� �a�'e ��� (see serve the The am thousand square h ;ch would 4. �'h parking spaces per tl� s spaces, v� feet �s � •' sp of �� parking p • f for a total o !� building, 40 _ provides f mot rata ed � p Q square - the k "The proposed R an d the 7, �r utilizing 5. � � Pharmacy �s a� required rates for �����C1 � spar Retail p�kt � total of 76 �a City f � is study, a ng the C y Based upon th grid and ub�l� � • �a t parking dam • are required � a ig�e�n , s p ���� building. � aces a square foot ess pa rktg P the 7 ,Q�� sq } survey , significantly a rk n's Use. a�ktng su Y f the `1V the actual p, requiremen than t upon aii 9 code - f otlas - 7. �,m the City s p ed us es �s a than f the proposed fit . n r ates for ogre im p�� � e� thousand �� � of Mahe �. 5.5 spaces p B. the s r site Nt� business ode, t h e Retail tares and se �ha�tn parku�� • a nd the C at trir stir the re - provided e�en� for deve10P raft paNe9 p o t re cite . . Based upon proposed s. ��r ��� these she the #ac���- H3as spaces. aluatiOn o o td regular � a11ov� an eu a��ng demands , too e ode en survey of the p r are required However, s� an engineering iri spaces • bad upon lass patting sight, ► significantly parking survey, n the actual p forth the ta the e ing code requiremen saw aye 9. a �s park Parking Ordinance wavers than tY� Anaheim P �, pe s C o f made before t �8g The to be t ct's�t� 't �•Q� • are required � � findings y �hic�1 a oYLQw�ng In commission. f b the planning appr'�Ve�` � 04/19/01 09 :48 FAX 612 332 2428 SEMPER DEVELOPMENT LTD. .TAN -03 -2001, 11:05 SEMPER DRAKE if will not cause fewer conditions imposed, jf anY, of such • under the coed in the number o That the variances provided f such use use under � • spaces to be p contrtbutes� to such u s off-street necessary P date all veh icier such s use. accommodate of operations of spaces necessary foreseeable conditions o � n reasonable totes the normal and X 006 303 825 7200 P.20/41 R$s onse to s `' a total of '1 spaces are Code requirements. ,mss which • of Anaheim Parking e5 for �3 park1n� spa d upon the City sed roject provid parking study. base P project. The propose based u pon this p required for the t arcking demand an st of dy, raga meet the peak P occupancy • sufficient to � spaces to e�c�ot�t'nod ata the full occuP will be sufficient parking spe ore, there is ruff' this the Therefore, - will not cause fewer .. of anY such der the condo proposed, than the n umber of That the variance, arks un provided for such use under the b. Th - spaces to be Q� � to such use u _street parkin+ a all vehicles attributed o� accommodate operations of such use. spaces necessary � conditions of opet�tt sp nab- foreseeable normal and reasonably Res. o �se to b - e and proposed rattail ai teens project as•t p P for the rio the ropose retail survey and the analysis �s provided so that The parking off-street parking P • ter that sufficient shops indicates parking will not be necessary. e street R ed if any. wilt not increase r the conditions impos , private props Y fir, the variance, under spaces u on adjacent p l G , That for parking spe upon not expressly demand end competition use which p ro p et rn i n u hence with ' to vicinity of the proposed a testiest in comp the provided as such use under an . ed as parking for s �ra�d Se Hof 18.O$.010.02 0 of this Code). parking vise to c the parking demand ' Gt will riot increase th p fined that the prof' because sufficient errand parking; study has determined adjacent private property The omp spaces on adjac p eti�cn for . - of competition - on-site for tiip facility. parking is provided on increase traffic Q imposed, if any, will not if 1 d the conditions imp d for suc u$e- That the variance, under areas or lots pco�rlde d. ��► the off-street parking congestion within as once !to d_ • h pro ject will not of the site because ' the off-street parking areas traffic con gestion within cause increased e d by the project - Y sufficient o n - street parking is provided 5 40 04/19/01 09:49 FAX 612 332 2428 SEMPER DEVELOPMENT LTD. 'JAN - 03 -2001 11:05 SEMPER DRAKE e. That the variance, under the conditions imposed, if arty, will not impede vehicular ingress or egress from adjacent properties, upon the public streets in the immediate vicinity of the proposed use. ats nse to e. The off•streetp arkin spaces provided do not impede vehicle ingress or egress from the .p g adjacent properties or upon La Palma Avenue or Euclid Avenue. PARKING SURVEY x007 303 825 7200 P.21/41 A parkin was conducted for three (3) similar Walgreens Pharmacy facilities parking survey located in Southern California. The parking survey was conducted at Waigreens located in Corona ( 1107 West 0th Street), Rialto (550 South Riverside Avenue), and Fontana ( 101 08 Foothill Boulevard). The parking survey was conducted on a typical weekday November 29, 2000 — Wednesday) and typical Saturday (December 2, 2000). Each of the Walgreens included in the parking survey is comparable to the proposed Anaheim site. Each site contained approximately 14,500 square footage of building and also included a drive -thru aisle. The parking survey was conducted during the hours of 11:00 AM to 7:00 PM every 15 minutes to determine the hourly distribution of parking at the existing facilities. It has been determined that based upon proposed uses that the peak parking demand would occur during these time frames that were surveyed. The tabulated results of the parking survey are included in Table 1. The results of the 1p parking survey included the timeframe, total vehicles parked on site and maximum parking demand. A summary of the peak parking demand that occurred at each of the three (3) sample sites are included in Table 2. Also included in Table 2 is the peak parking demand at each site for both typical weekday and Saturday conditions. As shown in Tables I and 2, the results of the parking survey indicate that the peak parking demand ranged from 23 to 34 spaces based on a weekday and 34 to 37 spaces on Saturday, The maximum parking demand occurred at the Corona Waigreens when a total of 37: vehicles were parked on site on Saturday at 12:'15 PM. As shown an Table 2, the average peak demand on weekdays of three (3) sample sites was 28 parked vehicles and 34 parked vehicles on a Saturday. As previously noted, the maximum number of vehicles parked at any of the three (3) sites was 37 vehicles at the Corona Waigreens. Based upon the summary of peak parking demand in Table 2, the typical peak parking demand pOr square foot for a Walgreens is a maximum of 2.56 spaces per thousand square feet of building. This is significantly less than the City of Anaheim's parking code for retail space developments under 104,000 square feet which requires 5.5 spaces per thousand square feet. The site characteristics of Waigreens and the fact that they have a drive -thru significantly reduces the overall peak parking demand for this type of land use, 6 04/19/01 09:49 FAX 612 332 2428 SEMPER DEVELOPMENT LTD. IAN-03-2001 11 :06 SEMPER DRAKE PARKING ANALYST Based upon th e surve y of existing Waigreens facilities, the maximum anticipated peak and for the .Wl reens Pharmacy is 37 vehicles based upon the Corona parking demand a • � ree and ro osed Anaheim site consists of a 14,413 square foot Walg ns a site. Thep p d u n the square foot retail use which would require 118 parking spaces base po City's parking code. As shown in Table 3, the total maximum parking requirements for the site is based upon the Waigreens parking survey and the City code • s 7l� spaces � � 7 040 square foot retail use The proposed site plan accommodates a parking for the q spaces which exceeds the projected peak parking demand for by a total of 93 Spa the site b o is r s aces or over 20 !o beyond what projected to be required. total of 17 spaces parking demand, it is anticipated that the proposed site �3ased upon the pc+oj P g - Waigreens Pharmacy drive -tht and the 7,040 square foot of retail consisting of the 1Na 9 uses would have sufficient parking ark�n and would not exceed the projected available • ithin the facility. The Waigreens Pharmacy is a relatively low parking parking spaces .within �Y . . in comparison to a comparable size retail development. It is not anticipated generator �n compare p that the proposed uses es would have any adverse impact with respect to parking demand within the site. RECOMMENDATIONS ro P osed site should be permitted with 14,418 square foot Waigreens. 7,04 1. Thep p square feet of retail space and the proposed 93 parking spaces. CONCLUSIONS surve for the proposed Anaheim vhf aigreens located at �K�IK has completed a parking survey - corner of Euclid Street and La Palma Avenue in the City of Anaheim. the southwest located ed a parking survey of three (3) comparable Waigreens facilities to RK.�K conducted pa g to the in the City o, Rialto and Fontana. Each of the sites were comparable t tY f Corona, - proposed Waigreens Anaheim Waigreens facility. Base! upon this study, the prop sed gree ns proposed imatei 37 parking spaces based upon the would generate a maximum need for approximately p g P parking su rve y and the 7 , square s uare foot of retail space would require a total of 39 parking P proposed "n 9 s aces. The ro osed project provides for a total of 93 spaces which are projected to substantially exceed the parking needs for the proposed uses. The project provides for a total of 93 parking spaces throughout the entire site. This is tp adequate to accommodate both the Walgreens Pharmacy and proposed retail uses. 7 lib 008 303 825 7200 P.22/41 R pp RKJK appreciates this opportunity to work with SEIVIPER DEVELOPMENT LTD. on this lip project, If have any questions regarding this or need further review, please do not la 3 you � hesitate to call us at (949) 474 -0809, Sincerely, • • 04/19/01 09:50,FAX 612 332 2428 SEMPER DEVELOPMENT LTD. JAN- 03 -20211 ' 11: 06 SEMPER DRAKE PKJK & ASSOCIATES; IN � �czr�., • r \f,."--‘,1,..,. L... - ; - ' . It .• - 1.1 ??' 4.:417 j .4 Robert Kahn,! P. E. .. ,,,, J J Principal , �� 0. RK:Wg111 652 JN:1405 -O0 -02 Attachments 8 X 009 303 E2S ?200 P.23/41 04/19/01 09:50 FAX 612 332 2428 SEMPER DEVELOPMENT LTD. JAN -03 -2001 11:06 SEMPER DRAKE J :lkkts01esUkk 11000tck111 1352113 JN:1405 -00-02 TABLE 1 PARKING SURVEY II 010 303 625 •7200 P.24/43. 11:15 AM 11:30 AM 11:45 AM 12 :00 NOON 12:15 PM 12:30 PM 12:45 PM 1:00 PM 1:15 PM 1:30 PM 1:45 PM 2 :00 PM 2:15 PM 2:3Q PM 2:45 PM 3 :00 PM 3:15 PM 3:30 PM 3:45 PM 4;00 PM 4 :15 PM 4:30 PM 4:45 PM 5:00 PM 5:15 PM 5:30 PM 5:45 PM 6:00 PM 6;15 PM 32 33 27 26 22 33 32 30 24 24 17 20 17 21 23 26 20 13 16 10 12 14 13 19 18 23 23 20 16 15 10 26 25 31 28 34 25 20 19 19 21 12 14 18 13 15 27 22 22 25 30 26 21 Sat 121212000 11:0T) AM 8:30 PM 6:45 PM 7 :00 PM MAXIMUM Waigreens Lincoln /6th Street Walgreens Foothill/Citrus Corona) We 11/29/2000 Sat 12/2/2000 16 36 27 20 19 18 22 19 18 14 15 17 Wed 11/29/2000 Fontana 9 • • -04/19/01 09:50 FAX 612 332 2428 SEMPER DEVELOPMENT LTD. JAN 11;06 SEMPER DRAKE fAkigabics‘kici 10IXANCI 1652tb ail405.00-02 I TABLE 2 PEAK PARKING OSMAND 1 0 Q011 303 825 7200 P.25/41 04/19/01 09:50 FAX 612 332 2428 SEMPER DEVELOPMENT LTD. J44 -2001 ; 11;06 SEMPER DRAKE PdtbibieS1k1C110(kAitici 652113 jK.-14O6.00O l TABLE 3 PARKING REQUIRED • N of the Vtilalgr�ne Pharmacies. 1 Based upon the parking survey 2 Bas ed upon the Clog parking cod a for retail tiSes- 11 X1012 303 $25 7200 P.26/41 N BACKGROUND NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS INC V COMMUNITY PLANNING - DESIGN - MARKET RESEARCH MEMORANDUM TO: Tom Melena FROM: Scott Richards DATE: May 2, 2001 ENCLOSURE 3 RE: Oak Park Heights — Village Area, East of Stagecoach Trail, Rezoning to R-1/Comprehensive Plan Amendment FILE NO: 798.04 -01.02 At their March 27, 2001 meeting, the City Council directed staff to schedule a public hearing of the Planning Commission to consider a rezoning of the area east of Stagecoach Trail and north of 56 Street from R -2, Low and Medium Density Residential to R -1, Single Family Residential. Residents of this neighborhood had requested the rezoning in the form of a petition to preserve the single family character of the area by not allowing the additional land use types allowed under the R -2 District. Under the current zoning designation of R -2, it is possible for landowners to construct or convert structures to twinhomes, townhomes, or multiple family dwellings with not more than four units. Because this area is now predominantly single family, residents want to keep it that way by eliminating the possibility of conversions or construction of new multiple family units. The Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map designates the area in question as business/ residential transitional. In order to make the zoning and land use plan consistent, the Comprehensive Plan designation would also need to be changed to low density residential. Attached for reference: Exhibit A: Exhibit B: Exhibit C: Exhibit D: Exhibit E: Site Location Topography and Structure Location Zoning Map Comprehensive Plan — Planning District 9 Zoning Ordinance Excerpts - R -1 and R -2 Districts 5775 WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 555 ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA 554 1 6 PHONE 6 1 2- 595 -9636 FAX 612-595-9837 E -MAIL NAC@ WINTERNET.COM ISSUES ANALYSIS Comprehensive Plan. As • p s indicated, the Comprehensive Plan designates this area as business /residential transitional use. The text of the Comprehensive Plan, specifically found in Planning District 9, does not provide a discussion of the potential for future land use or redevelopment of the area in question. In designating this area as business/ residential, the Planning Commission saw these properties as having future potential for redevelopment, possibly with mid to higher density residential or as business warehousing use. Nine houses currently exist in the area zoned R -2, some of the homes are in need of repair, while others are being improved by their owners. The homes are isolated from other residential areas by Stagecoach Trail and the single family neighborhood to the west. The State of Minnesota Correctional Facility is to the south, wetlands and State Highway 95 is to the east, and the Xcel Energy substation is to the north. East of State Highway 95 is Dahl Tech Plastic Containers, and the Xcel Energy power plant. The power plant is expected to be a long term land use for at least the next 20 to 50 Y ears. The neighborhood, as it is currently developed, is approximately 12 acres and does not Y have the potential to be expanded. Those areas that are not developed, especially p Y those to the west and south of the existing homes, are encumbered by power line easements. The Xcel substation facility limits development to the north, a significant change in topography and wetland facilities limit additional construction to the east. Additional development possibly could occur to the southeast near Picket Avenue, depending upon right -of -way or easement restrictions. When the Comprehensive Plan was finalized in 1998, this area was designated as transitional. The potential for long term redevelopment was discussed at that time, possibly with mid to higher density residential units or as a business /warehousing area with orientation to the south with access off of 56 Street. Because of the isolated nature of this area and the surrounding land uses, a long term designation of low density residential is likely not appropriate. If the land could be assembled, a redevelopment of townhomes or multiple family units could be created. The land area could support adequate density to create a viable neighborhood. Pedestrian linkages on or under Stagecoach Trail could further strengthen the tie to the residential use and park facilities to the west. Business /warehouse uses would also be appropriate for the area. Developable lots for small businesses similar to what is available in the Kern Center are in high demand in the St. Croix Valley. That use would relate well to the existing business /industrial uses to the north and east. Proper layout and planning would need to be done to assure compatibility with the neighborhood to the west. At this time, it is not recommended that the Comprehensive Plan be revised from its current land use designation for the neighborhood. The single family use can and should continue until such time as market demand or the economic feasibility of 2 redevelopment is appropriate. A timeline for that to happen, if it ever does, cannot be • predicted. Access. Access to the area is currently provided by Perkins Avenue and the gravel g roadway to the Xcel substation. With the current traffic on Stagecoach Trail and 56 Street, redevelopment may not be feasible at this time. The single family use that exists is appropriate to minimize the numbers of trips per day out of this area. Redevelopment would likely not occur until the St. Croix River Bridge is constructed or other significant roadway changes are made in this area to reduce the traffic on Stagecoach Trail and 56 Zoning. Section 401.03.A of the Zoning Ordinance directs the City Council consider the possible adverse effects of the proposed amendment. Its judgments must be based upon, but not limited to, the following factors: a. Relationship to the specific policies and provisions of the municipal Comprehensive Plan. Comment: See Comprehensive Plan discussion above. b. The conformity with present and future land uses in the area. Comment: Surrounding land uses are not expected to change in the future around this neighborhood. A low density single family neighborhood of only nine units is not in conformity with those existing land uses. A more transitional use of higher density residential or business warehouse use would be more in conformity with at least the land uses to the north, south and east. c. The environmental issues and geographic area involved. Comment: The area is influenced by topography constraints and wetlands to the east. The site is also influenced by utility easements and rights -of -way. d. Whether the use will tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. Comment: A change in zoning classification to R -1 would not have any immediate impact on values or quality of the neighborhood. It would prevent any of the units to be converted to duplexes or construction of small multiple unit dwellings in the area. In the long term, rezoning to R -1 would perpetuate the single family use and possibly make a change to a transitional zone more difficult. 3 e. The impact on character of the surrounding area. Comment: Rezoning to R -1 would not have an impact on the character of the surrounding area, especially the neighborhood to the west. f. The demonstrated need for such use. g Comment: The residential use is existing and would not change with the rezoning to R -1. Traffic generation by the use in relation to capabilities of streets serving the property. Comment: Low density residential use results in low traffic generation that is not impacted by a rezoning from R -2 to R -1. h. The impact upon existing public services and facilities including parks, schools, gp , streets, and utilities, and the City's service capabilities. Comment: No impact on public services and facilities will result with a change in zoning classification from R -2 to R -1. i. The proposed use's conformity with all performance standards contained herein (i.e., parking, loading, noise, etc.). Comment: No impact to conformity with performance standards. RECOMMENDATION While the proposed rezoning does not have an "adverse effect" when compared to the Zoning Ordinance criteria for rezoning, it is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Although single family use is appropriate now as an existing use, the City must look at what is appropriate in the long term. As a result, staff recommends that the Comprehensive Plan not be changed and the zoning for this area remain at R -2. In an August 1999 report on this area, staff had asked the Planning Commission to consider the most appropriate zoning classification for the area to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. It was suggested that the R -B District would be an appropriate zone for the long term land use. The B -W District could also be considered. As long as the area remains a residential neighborhood, staff does not advocate a change in g zoning. We would suggest a rezoning only if an appropriate redevelopment proposal would be brought forward for consideration and after significant roadway changes occur to reduce the traffic on adjacent streets. pc: Kris Danielson 4 • • L 0 a F.. W C — W J oC -Ja 5a- 1 < �— 0 4101 lelrlllll �f� 1 IME1111114 .iIhuII IIIIIIII!! i1 .nll ,nl ) u!!mH u IIIIuuIH!!flr IIIIII IIII.�illll��iillllll� 1111111 13IIIIIIlll.nllll11lll Alllllllll IIIIIIIillll •c ... 7.)..v YdN c a °5 a�= Z N 0 r V aVN cv coca < U 0 0 O O O N O O O O O O O i 0 0 N Q EXHIBIT A PLANNING DISTRICT 9 NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING DISTRICTS • Planning District 9 consists of the area commonly referred to as lower Oak Park Heights. The land uses consist primarily of single family homes, small commercial and light industrial facilities and the open area created by the Minnesota Department p nt of Transportation for construction of the St. Croix River Crossing. It is the intent of 9 the Comprehensive Plan to preserve and protect the existing single family areas 9 9 y of this neighborhood in that it represents the historic beginnings of the community and provides needed moderate income housing for Oak Park Heights residents. The City will work with in Y the Washington County HRA n assuring that programs are available for housing repair . 9 p and rehabilitation. Additionally, the City has programmed street reconstruction activities for 1999 or 2000 for many of the streets within this district. The City will also continue to enforce its standards related to buildings and property to assure that the neighborhood 9 remains a safe and attractive place to live. A continued investment by the City through Y 9 its street reconstruction program serves to protect the viability of the neighborhood. Y 9 Residents of the neighborhood will likely petition the City to rezone the residential areas from R -2, Low and Medium Density Residential to R -1, Single Family Residential. This is seen as a way of preserving the neighborhood as single family and preventing two family Y and townhome development. The Planning Commission is expected to study this issue in 1999. The area purchased by MnDOT for the St. Croix River Crossing is almost completely . p Y cleared of its homes and commercial businesses. The City has rezoned the ro ert 0, p p Y Open Space to further restrict the potential reuse of the area. Depending upon the bridge g e p 9 location and resulting Highway 36 and 95 intersection, this area will likely be used for roadway construction and the resulting right -of -way. The City may consider reuse of the site for residential uses if a significant portion of the site is not utilized for roadway purposes. The area on Stagecoach Trail between Perro Creek and the State of Minnesota Correctional Facility in Bayport is designated on the Proposed Land Use Plan ma p for business warehouse uses. An existing industrial /warehousing facility exists in this area as well as five single family homes. it is the intent of the City, through its Economic Development Authority, to eventually convert this area to all business/warehousing uses in that the existing single family homes are detached from the existing neighborhood and adversely impacted by existing land uses. The area is currently zoned I, Industrial and R- 2, Low and Medium Density Residential. The City will consider the Industrial zoning or a possible rezoning to B -W, Business Warehouse. OAK PARK HEIGHTS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE 89 DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK U- 0 u' w ~ w J 5 a w = a � 0) 0 C c 23 co U to co - a) _ � - t 0 oz o_� u cz O oto/fo 0 oQ U7 r 60 o a`) o Z o I II i iiiiiii iiiI P!HhIPHi[ u�s� ns��inin��no iiMMss$ss mmummummumirs !1i!II1 HHh!!IHII IIIIIii nnnuipn�� EXHIBIT B N �j a�i _0 U •r = = E_ C LLILaLE a co co Um N 1111 w 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 0 0 0 o EXHIBIT C 0 0 N N t0 J PROPOSED LAND USE Low Density Estate Residential Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential la High Density Residential Quasi - Public Facilities I. School Facilities Government Facilities EMI I I CBD Commercial Business/Residential Transitional Industrial Highway Business/Warehouse Park Facilities /Open Space Estate ResidentiaVGolf Course /Parks and Open Space 88 WWI C:3 District Boundary Wetland/Ponding Areas 600 0 600 Feet City of Oak Park Heights EXHIBIT D 401.22. R -1, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT 401.22.A. Purpose. The purpose of the R -1, Single Family District is to provide for low density single family detached residential dwelling units and directly related, complementary uses. 401.22.B. Permitted Uses. The following are permitted uses in an R -1 District: 1. Single family detached dwellings. 2. City parks and playgrounds. 3. Day care facilities serving twelve (12) or fewer persons. 4. Residential care facilities serving six (6) or fewer persons. 5. Cellular telephone antennas located on a public structure as regulated in Section 401.15.P of this Ordinance. 401.22.C. Interim Uses. The following are interim uses in an R -1 District: 1. None. 401.22.D. Accessory Uses. The following are permitted accessory uses in an R -1 District: 1. Private garages, parking spaces and carports for licensed and operable passenger cars and trucks not to exceed a gross capacity of twelve thousand (12,000) pounds, as regulated by Section 401.15.F. (Off- Street Parking) of this Ordinance. Private garages are intended for use to store the private passenger vehicles of the family or families residing upon the premises, and in which no business service or industry is carried on. 2. Recreational vehicles and equipment. 3. Home occupations. 4. Private swimming pools when fully in compliance with all applicable State standards. 22 -1 EXHIBIT E • 5. Tool houses, sheds and similar buildings for storage of domestic supplies and non - commercial recreational equipment. 6. Public parks and playgrounds. 7. Essential services. 8. Radio and television antennas including single satellite dish TVROs one (1) meter or less in diameter, short -wave radio dispatching antennas, or those necessary for the operation of household electronic equipment including radio receivers, federally licensed amateur radio stations and television receivers, as regulated in Section 401.15.P of this Ordinance. 401.22.E. Conditional Uses. The following are conditional uses in an R -1 District. (Requires a conditional use permit based upon procedures set forth in and regulated b g by Section 401.03 of this Ordinance.) 1. Public or semi - public recreational buildings and neighborhood or community centers' public and private educational institutions limited to elementary, junior high and senior high schools; and religious institutions such as churches, chapels, temples and synagogues provided that: a. Side yards shall be double that required for the district, but no greater than fifty (50) feet. b. Adequate screening from abutting residential uses and landscaping is provided in compliance with Section 401.15.E. of this Ordinance. c. Adequate off- street parking and access is provided on the site or on lots directly abutting across a public street or alley to the principal use in compliance with Section 401.15.F. of this Ordinance and that such parking is adequately screened and landscaped from surrounding and abutting residential uses in compliance with Section 401.15.E. of this Ordinance. d. Adequate off- street loading and service entrances are provided and regulated where applicable by Section 401.03.F of this Ordinance. e. The provisions of Section 401.03.A.8 of this Ordinance are considered and satisfactorily met. 2. Water supply buildings, reservoirs, wells, elevated tanks and similar essential public utility and service structures. 22 -2 *3. Bed and breakfast facilities providing that the following criteria are met. For the purpose of this Ordinance, bed and breakfast units shall include those rooms that are provided to transient guests for compensation, but not including those rooms used by the owner occupants: f. g a. A maximum of six (6) bed and breakfast units may be established within a structure, unless as noted in item b, lot size would allow for more, but not to exceed a maximum of ten (10) units. b. The parcel on which the bed and breakfast is located shall accommodate at least three thousand (3,000) square feet of lot area per bed and breakfast unit inclusive of the owner - occupants' living quarters. c. The facility shall have a State issued license for lodgin g and food service, and comply with and maintain all health, safety, building, and fire codes as may be required or applicable. d. The fee owner shall be in residence of the structure and shall maintain same as their homestead and demonstrate that the structure is in part classified as homestead for tax purposes. e. All bed and breakfast units shall be established within the rinci al structure. p p • The original principal structure used for the bed and breakfast shall have a minimum size of one thousand seven hundred fifty (1,750) gross square feet. No bed and breakfast facility shall be located closer than at least nine hundred (900) feet from other bed and breakfast facilities as measured from property lines. h. Any structure proposed to be used for a bed and breakfast must have historic significance. Historic significance is demonstrated by: 1) Structures that are on the National Register of Historic properties and are substantially intact. 2) Structures that are at least eighty (80) years of age and are substantially intact. 3) Structures that can demonstrate historic significance as determined by the City Council. *Amended Ord. No. 01- 401 -02, 27 March 2001 22 -3 • J. No more than the equivalent of two (2) full time persons shall be employed by the bed and breakfast facilities who are not residents of the structure. Dining and other facilities shall not be opened to the public but shall be used exclusively by the residents, registered guests of the facility, or guests of a meeting held at the facility. k. The owner - occupant of the bed and breakfast shall be allowed to host small groups and meetings if the facility contains at least one thousand (1,000) square feet of area for this purpose as well as a commercial kitchen that complies with all health, safety, and building code standards. Groups and meetings shall be limited to no more than two (2) persons per bed and breakfast unit. The owners of a bed and breakfast may request a permit for special events that will exceed the two persons per unit limit requiring submittal of an application and consideration of approval by the Community Development Director. Two (2) off - street parking spaces shall be provided for the facility plus one (1) for each bed and breakfast unit. Parking areas shall be screened and landscaped and no parking space shall be located in the front yard of the property, other than on an existing driveway. The parking areas shall be improved with asphalt, but shall be exempt from other commercial parking requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. m. Not more than one (1) exterior identification sign not exceeding six (6) square feet in area may be located on the premises. No window signage shall be allowed for bed and breakfast facilities. The sign shall be reflective of the architectural features in the structure and may not be externally or internally illuminated. n. Adequate lighting shall be provided between the principal structure and the parking area for the safety of guests. All external lighting shall be regulated by conditional use permit. o. All bed and breakfast conditional use permits shall be reviewed annually by the Community Development Department. If violations of City ordinances, , Building Code, or conditions of approval are found, the Community Development Director shall schedule a public hearing of the Planning Commission to consider the conditional use permit and conditions. Upon a Planning Commission recommendation, the City Council may make adjustments to or cancel the conditional use permit. 22-4 P. The provisions of Section 401.03.A.7 of this Ordinance are considered and satisfactorily met. 4. Residential planned unit development as regulated by Section 401.06 of this Ordinance. 5. Single satellite dish TVROs greater than one (1) meter in diameter provided that: a. The provisions of Section 401.03.A.8 and Section 401.15.P of this Ordinance are considered and satisfactorily met. 6. Cellular telephone antennas not located on a public structure provided that: a. The provisions of Section 401.03.A.8 and Section 401.15.P of this Ordinance are considered and satisfactorily met. 22 -5 401.26. • • R -2, LOW AND MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT 401.26.A. Purpose. The purpose of the R -2, Low and Medium Density Residential District is to provide for low to moderate density residential dwellings and directly related, complementary uses. 401.26.B. Permitted Uses. The following are permitted uses in an R -2 District: 1. All permitted uses allowed in an R -1 District. 2. Two family dwelling units. 401.26.C. Interim Uses. The following are interim uses in an R -2 District: 1. None. 401.26.D. Accessory Uses. The following are permitted accessory uses in an R -2 District: 1. All accessory uses as allowed in an R -1 District. 401.26.E. Conditional Uses. The following are conditional uses in an R -2 District: (Requires a conditional use permit based upon procedures set forth in and regulated by Section 401.03 of this Ordinance.) 1. All conditional uses, subject to the same conditions as allowed in an R -1 District. 3 Townhouses, quadraminiums, cooperatives and condominiums as defined in Section 401.02.B. of this Ordinance. Multiple family dwelling structures of not more than four (4) units, provided that: a. The proposed site contains at least three thousand five hundred (3,500) square feet per dwelling unit. b. The proposed site is located adjacent to a collector or minor arterial street. * Amended Ord. No. 97- 401.02, October 14, 1997 26 -1 ** 5. c. At least one (1) garage space is provided for each dwelling unit. d. The proposed site is landscaped and screened with planting materials in compliance with Section 401.15.E. of this Ordinance. e. The proposed structure design is reasonably compatible with its low density residential environment, as determined by the City Council. *f. The provisions of Section 401.03.A.8. of this Ordinance are considered and satisfactorily met. Manufactured Housing Parks. Manufactured housing parks including p g manufactured single family housing units, offices limited to the administration of the park, recreational buildings and structures, storm shelters, and other directly related complementary uses, provided that: a. General Provisions for all Manufactured Home Parks. 1) Area. All land area shall be: a) Adequately drained. b) Landscaped to control dust. c) Clean and free from refuse, garbage, rubbish or debris. 2) Outdoor Camping. There shall not be outdoor camping anywhere in a manufactured home park. 3) Public Access. Public access to manufactured housing parks shall be as approved by the City. 4) Building Permit. All structures (fences, storage, decks, etc.) shall require a building permit from the Building Official. Fences shall be prohibited on individual manufactured home lots. 5) Foundation Enclosure. The area beneath a manufactured home shall be enclosed except that such enclosure must have access for inspection. * Amended Ord. No. 97- 401.02, October 14, 1997 ** Amended Ord. 98- 401 -02, 12 May 1998 26 -2 • • • 6) Community Building /Emergency Storm Shelter. A manufactured home park shall have an adequate central community buildin g and storm shelter. Such building must be constructed in conformance with Chapter 1370, Department of Administration, Minnesota State Building Code requirements for storm shelters and be provided with rest room facilities, have adequate heating in all areas, and be maintained in a safe, clean and sanitary condition. Additionally, all emergency storm protection measures shall be subject to the approval of the City Council. 7) Lot Setbacks. Individual manufactured home lot setbacks: a) No manufactured home shall be located closer than ten (10) feet to a side or rear lot line. The front yard setback shall be at least thirty (30) feet from the street surface. On corner lots, the side yard setback shall be at least twenty (20) feet from the street surface. No manufactured home shall be located closer than thirty (30) feet from the periphery lot line of the manufactured home park. 8) Permitted Encroachments. a) Attached steps, uncovered stoops, and landings may encroach up to five (5) feet into a side yard setback, provided that they do not exceed twenty (20) square feet in area or extend closer than ten (10) feet to a structure on an adjacent lot. b) An eave or overhang may encroach up to one (1) foot into a front, side and rear setback. 9) Building Height Requirements. No structure shall exceed one (1) story or twenty-five (25) feet, whichever is least. 10) Utilities. a) All manufactured home parks shall be connected to a public water and sanitary sewer system. b) All installations for disposal of surface storm water must be approved by the City and applicable watershed district. c) All utility connections shall be as approved by the City. 26 -3 d 12) Accessory Buildings. b e) All utilities shall be underground. There shall be no overhead wires or supporting poles except those essential for street or other lighting purposes. No obstruction shall be permitted that impedes the inspection p plumbing, electrical facilities, and related manufactured home equipment. f) The method of garbage, waste, and trash disposal must be approved by the City. g) The owner shall pay any required sewer and water connection fees to the City. h) The owner shall pay inspection and testing fees for utility services to the City. 11) Storage. Exterior storage on individual manufactured home lots shall comply with the provisions of Section 401.15 of this Chapter, except not more than one (1) recreational vehicle may be allowed on a lot. a) Except as specifically regulated by this Section, all accessory buildings shall meet the applicable requirements of Section 401.15 D of this Chapter. Limit. Accessory buildings including garages shall be limited to one (1) per manufactured home lot. Maximum allowable floor area shall not exceed six (6) percent of the lot size in manufactured home parks where lot size is delineated by site plan or lot markers. c) Maximum Building Height. Fifteen (15) feet. d) Location. The manufactured home park site plan shall designate the locations proposed for the development of garages and /or accessory buildings on each manufactured home. Said accessory buildings shall comply with the following setback requirements: i. An accessory building shall only be located in side or rear yards. 26 -4 • • e) ii. Accessory buildings shall not be located within any utility easements. iii. All accessory buildings located on individual manufactured home unit lots shall be owned, constructed, and maintained by the manufactured home park owner. All accessory structures shall be established as part of a predetermined site plan and subject to the approval of the City Council. Building Type and Construction. Any building addition shall either be manufactured or custom built of materials that are consistent or compatible to the design of the principal building. "Compatible" means that the exterior appearance of an accessory building is not at variance with the principal building from an aesthetic and architectural standpoint to cause: i. A difference to a degree to cause incongruity with the principal building. ii. A deviation from the general character of the neighborhood. iii. A depreciation of neighborhood values or adjacent property values. iv. A nuisance. Types of nuisance characteristics include, but are not limited to, noise, dust, odors, glare and unsightly building exterior. b. Design Requirements for Manufactured Home Parks. 1) Park Size. The minimum area required for a manufactured home park designation shall be twenty (20) acres. 2) Lot Size. Individual manufactured home lots: a) Lot Area. Not less than twelve thousand (12,000) square feet. b) Lot Width. Not less than eighty (80) feet. c) Lot Depth. Not less than one hundred (100) feet. 26 -5 b d) Each manufactured home lot shall have frontage on an approved roadway and the corners of each manufactured home lot shall be marked and each lot shall be numbered. Parking. a) Each manufactured home site shall have off - street parking space for two (2) passenger vehicles. b) All parking spaces shall be hard surfaced according to specifications established by the City. Internal Roads and Streets. a) All streets shall be private streets and shall be developed with a road bed of not less than thirty -two (32) feet in width and shall meet City design specifications. Street plans shall be subject to review and approval of the City Engineer. A reduction in the street width requirement may be allowed by conditional use permit as regulated by Section 401.03 of this Chapter provided sufficient off- street guest parking spaces, as determined by the City, are constructed and maintained at the owner /operator's expense. b) The park shall have a street lighting plan approved by the City. Recreation. All manufactured home parks shall have at least ten (10) percent of the land area developed for recreational use (tennis courts, children's play equipment), swimming pool, golf green, etc.). The recreational use shall be developed and maintained at the owner /operator's expense. Landscaping. a) Each manufactured home lot shall be provided with two (2) trees. The size and type of trees must meet the requirements of Section 401.15.E of this Chapter. A landscape screen meeting the requirements of Section 401.15.E of this Chapter shall be installed and maintained around each manufactured home park. 26 -6 • 3 4 7 c) All areas shall be landscaped in accordance with a landscaping plan approved by the City Council. Lighting. a) Artificial light shall be maintained during all hours of darkness in all buildings containing public toilets, laundry equipment, rY and the like. b) The manufactured home park grounds shall be lighted as approved by the City from sunset to sunrise. c) All lighting within the manufactured home park grounds shall be subject to the requirements of Section 401.15.6.7 of this Chapter. c. Operational Standards for Manufactured Home Park. 1) Maintenance. The operator of any manufactured home ark p , or a duly authorized attendance and /or caretaker shall be responsible at all times for keeping the manufactured home park, its facilities and equipment, in a clean, orderly, operable, and sanitary condition. The attendant or caretaker shall be answerable, along with said operator, for the violation of any provisions of these regulations to which said operator is subject. 2) Inspection Prior to Sale. Prior to the sale of a manufactured home within a manufactured home park, the operator of a manufactured home park or the duly authorized attendant and /or caretaker must inform the Building Official of the prospective sale and provide him with a completed copy of the Manufactured Home Safety Disclosure Form required by Minnesota Statutes, Section 327.07, Subdivision 3A. Permits. Prior to a manufactured home being moved into a lot, the owner shall apply for and obtain a building permit for the (foundation) blocking to State Code and a permit for connection to public sewer and water. The application for permits shall be accompanied by a site plan, drawn to scale, detailing the unit placement, accessory structures, and setbacks. Upgrading. Prior to locating a manufactured home housing unit constructed prior to 1 July 1972, on a lot within a manufactured home 26 -7 park within the City, said unit shall be upgraded to current life safety codes and subject to the approval of the Building Official. d. Maintenance. All private internal streets in manufactured home parks shall be maintained by the park owner in a good state of repair, free from obstructions, encumbrances, depressions, pot holes, and break ups. Snow shall be promptly plowed and removed from streets and adjacent mail boxes adjacent fire hydrants, so that snow or snow piles do not constitute a safety hazard to motorists and pedestrians, or constitute an obstruction to emergency service vehicles. Icy streets and areas adjacent to mail boxes shall be promptly sanded. "Promptly" shall mean no later than twenty-four (24) hours after the end of a snow fall or in the case of ice within twenty-four (24) hours after it was formed. • r r .r • • "• v APR - 30 -2001 MON 11:30 AM COLLINS ELECTRIC 0o! /ins RI.LCTIZtCA CONSTRArcTION CO, 278 Stale Street Si. 1'n Minnesota 55147 Telephone: pihone: (651) 224 -2833 Facsimile: (651) 292 - O35 � 111/V ai r L1 r,1l7Ufr FAX NC, 6612920359 Date: April 30, 2001 Tot A&P fax 952-525-2333 Attention; Dave I From: Todd Staines Regarding: B�utwell Landing Site Lighting P. 01 T RAl SM IT TA1. Dave, Pleas review the attached slcofch. This is a revised lay-out of tie (5) lighting poles affected by th new location of the park shelter, The site work is in process, the control panel/sox-vice is insballcd at the N,B. corricr of the harking lot, 1 would request a response by the Wed 5/2 /O1 construction =cling. This is a no -cost change. Thanks,Todd Number of pages inQiudiflg cover sheet: 2 Original to follow b mail: Yes No Tease delivet' this facsiiflf!e to the abovo adziror seo• C4rtract us if all pages we're not received in good ccsncETiori. 'thank you! lei VV O4i /01 MON 14:04 FAX ADOLFSON & PETERSON tin003 APR--0O--2001 MON 11:30 AM MANS ELECTRIC t �y w 4: T D r r . 1 . r • .n .� Mr / .r• . .... f •.., ...... ''...i r ali". ' — ter r+ •""' ▪ a'''' yr+ - ~fir Ni ■ ' , _ t . ` '" ..x.311 I e %. n TOO '‘............ 1.1w f I.- I t:;: 3P Ai - i., I I ,. i 413,1 1 I .., ... te,'4 T ♦* : 3" 1 fi • j r ` N / j ‘ \ I i I - Ate r t ---,LULU 1 1 arew•1•1 ti 1 ir ill .mot • ..�%M %.D, ~ �'.� '1 • ,./ . �r� ra FAX NO. 5512920359 P. 02 r I / I / ,r .11'N VV rl P l • .• F. Parks Commission Recommendations: Valley View Park Administrator Melena reviewed a memo outlining the Parks Commission's recommendations for Valley View Park from its September 18, 2000 meeting. City Council Minutes September 26, 2000 Page 4 of 5 Councilmember Swenson, seconded by Mayor Schaaf, moved to approve a $200 donation to Community Fitness Partners for printing of maps. Carried 4 — 0. Councilmember Swenson, seconded by Mayor Schaaf, moved to accept the Parks Commission's recommendations. Carried 4 — 0. G. Set Dates for Council and Mayoral Debates Mayor Schaaf, seconded by Councilmember Beaudet, moved to direct staff to send a letter to the Cable Commission offering the use of the City's facilities and encouraging him to set up a forum. Carried 4 — 0. VII. Old Business. H. Boutwell's Landing Signage. Lighting and Park Name Mark Moilanen of VSSA provided details on the progress of Boutwell's Landing. Dan Newdecker of JS SA Architects presented the signage plan for Boutwell's Landing noting changes made based on Parks and Planning Commission recommendations. Councilmember Turnquist, seconded by Swenson, moved to authorize VSSA to move ahead with their signage plan with the understanding that a park name is yet to be determined and that all signage must comply with City requirements. Carried 3 —1, Beaudet opposed. Dan Delong of Architectural Lighting Design presented the lighting plan for street and park lights in Boutwell's Landing. Commissioner Wasescha added the Planning Commission's recommendations on lighting in Boutwell's Landing. Councilmember Turnquist, seconded by Mayor Schaaf, moved to authorize VSSA to proceed with plans for 14 foot pole lighting on streets in Boutwell's Landing and to request Planning Commission consideration of 24 foot pole lighting in parking lots, trail lighting and lens type for all pole lighting. Carried 3 -- 1, Beaudet opposed. VIII. Adjournment to EDA Meeting Councilmember Swenson, seconded by Turnquist, moved to adjourn to the EDA Meeting at 8:55 p.m. Carried 4 -- 0. Old Business: B. Boutwell's Landing Lighting Plan: Planning Commission Minutes October 12, 2000 Page 4 of 5 A. Public/ Institutional Zoning District Amendment: City Planner Richards reviewed his report noting direction of City Council for meeting to take place between the affected properties and the Commission. He further noted that staff has recommended adding parks, recreational facilities, structures or buildings as a conditional use within the proposed district, with the intent that minor changes to the parks would not require a conditional use permit. After brief discussion, it was the consensus of the Commission that the public hearing on this matter should be re- opened and scheduled for public hearing to received public feedback from the affected property owners and their surrounding neighbors. City Planner Richards and Community Development Director Danielson relayed the City Council's request for additional information regarding lighting issues for Boutwell's Landing as a result of their revised lighting plan. Mark Molian, Boutwell's Landing Campus Director; Dan Neudeker, Johnson, Sheldon, Sorenson & Hafner Architects; and a representative from Architectural Lighting Designs were present. The gentlemen discussed issues and answer questions as they related to light pole heights, lens style and trail lighting. The Commission discussed VSSA's proposal to place twenty -four foot high light fixtures within the parking lots. Lengthy discussion was had as to the appearance of the fixtures, amount of light spread created, fixture design and economic issues related to having twenty -two poles twenty -four feet in height versus having thirty-six poles that g y p are fourteen feet in height. David Beaudet, 6400 Lookout Trail, N., Oak Park Heights, MN 55082 noted that there were areas where this kind of lighting was in place, and indicated that he felt the Commission would benefit by observing the style of lighting before making a decision. He suggested that they wait until a later time to make a decision on the issue of the pole height as the building wouldn't be completed until Spring . Commissioner Wasescha, seconded by Commissioner Dahlquist, moved to recommend that decision on the parking lot lights be delayed until the fourteen -foot fixtures are installed in the streets. They further suggested that example fourteen -foot and twenty - four foot fixtures be installed in one of the parking lots before final recommendation and decision is made. Carried 4 -0. Additional discussion was had as to the lens style of the fixtures. VSSA indicated that they were interested in the drop lens (globe) style because of it decorative style and noted that the fixture is photo - metrically identical to the fixture originally submitted. The lighting fixture was displayed and its composition explained. • • Commissioner Dwyer, seconded by Commissioner Wasescha, moved to recommend approval of the drop lens style so long as the fixture complies with the 90 degree cut off and required by City Ordinance. Carried 4 -0. Finally, discussion was held as to lighting of the trails within the development. It was noted that the lighting of the park and trails is a recommendation from the Parks Commission to the City Council. To this end VSSA expressed their interest in lighting the parks trails with widely spread, fourteen -foot pole fixtures that would emit soft light have cut off designed to protect neighboring residences from light flood. Issues of discussion included which trails would be lit, what periods of time the lighting would be in operation and the distance of light coverage, and other related issues to lighting of the area. Commissioner Hedlund, seconded by Commissioner Dahlquist, moved to recommend that there be no lighting of the park or trails within the project. 2 -2, Wasescha and Dywer voting nay. Informational/ Update: A. Brackey Outlot A Roadway Option Update: B. Commission Training Workshop: Planning Commission Minutes October 12, 2000 Page 5 of 5 Community Development Director Danielson provided the Commission with an update to issue regarding this property. She summarized previous requirements established by the Planning Commission and noted that several access issues are being researched, as is the matter of public versus ownership of the road accesses and costs. Community Development Director Danielson informed the Commission that a training workshop would be conducted at 6:00 p.m., October 23, 2000 in the large conference room at City Hall and encouraged all those who could, to attend. Adjournment: Commissioner Dwyer, seconded by Commissioner Wasescha, moved to adjourn at 9:38 p.m. Carried 4 -0. Respectfully submitted, Julie A. Hultman Community Development Secretary Approved by the Planning Commission: December 14, 2000. • • A LAO- A68 -ZT9 'Xe1 LEES- A66 -Zt9 •gd .' SASS •um •e uonauutui arm L ierq gm ;our •3u4 •S,Ia�,L[H31iY .iau m; 3f uaaua.i •uoptags •uoeugof NMaO OO /L I/b 31V0 `d1O53NNIW 'S1H9I3H )I?JYd >IVO 1LJINflWh'2 tO 9NIAI'1 1401N95 9NIaN`d•1 5"1'1�NIlflO 13 wow 55310e1 API 9NI1H91 "1 X115 SLN31NO3 vcs, • • 1 • • A LAO- A68 -ZT9 'Xe1 LEES- A66 -Zt9 •gd .' SASS •um •e uonauutui arm L ierq gm ;our •3u4 •S,Ia�,L[H31iY .iau m; 3f uaaua.i •uoptags •uoeugof NMaO OO /L I/b 31V0 `d1O53NNIW 'S1H9I3H )I?JYd >IVO 1LJINflWh'2 tO 9NIAI'1 1401N95 9NIaN`d•1 5"1'1�NIlflO 13 wow 55310e1 API 9NI1H91 "1 X115 SLN31NO3 vcs, • • • • Items for Discussion: TH 36 Subarea Study TEC Meeting #18 Notice and Agenda May 2, 2001 Oakdale City Hall 1584 Hadley Avenue North, Oakdale 2:00 -4:00 p.m. 1. Official Mapping/Right - of - Way Acquisition Loan Fund (RALF) Discussion \Lo wzrax,ttiT 5 2. Review of April 26 Advisory Meeting 3. Review of April 26 Open House 4. Final Comments on TH 36 Corridor Management Plan 5. Draft resolution for consideration by Washington County and Municipalities � ty 1palitzes 6. Next Steps Presentation of Final Corridor Management Plan to City Councils 7. Schedule City Council Presentations Oakdale - Pine Springs - Lake Elmo - Grant - Mahtomedi- Tuesday June 5th Oak Park Heights - Stiliwater- N:12staffl 1- tr- plan\ulmerith 36\tec&adv cmte15201 agenda.doc t).0- Lgti • Meeting Date 4/10/01 Agenda Placement Requester's Signature Action Requested Consent _ Receive Report Oak Park Heights Request for Council Action Agenda Item Title Receive TH 36 Corridor Management Plan Drat Time Required _ 1 min. Originating Department /Requestor Administration/Kimberl Damper Administrative Recommendation: Approve Den No Recommendation Comments: Background/Justification (Please indicate if an previous action has been taken or if other public bodies have advised) Attached is the TH 36 Corridor Management Plan Draft Report. The purpose of this report is to document the study process and key outcomes of the combined TH 36 Subarea/Interregiona.l Corridor (IRC) Stud The Technical Evaluation Committee (TEC) is requesting comment before their next meeting on May 2, 2001. An Open House on the study will also be held on April 26, 2001 at the Washington Count Government Center at 5:30 p.m. — 7:00 p.m. I would like to request that you receive the report and review it before the next City Council meeting on April 24, 2001. This item will be on the next agenda to collect an comments that will then be forwarded to the TEC group. Date/Time Received City Administrator /Date Financial Implications Budget Line Item Budgeted: Yes No Funding: Lev Other SASHARED\Fornzs\COUNCIL ACTION REQUEST.doc ° R4Fr TH 36 Corridor Management Plan April 2001 Moving Minnesota The purpose of this TH 36 Corridor Management Plan is to document the study process and key outcomes of the combined TH 36 Subarea/Interregional Corridor (IRC) Study. This executive summary focuses on key elements of the study process including the TH 36 Corridor vision, the recommended TH 36 Corridor Management Plan, and the Implementation Plan and Shared Strategies that are needed. TH 36 Corridor Vision The corridor vision has been developed based on study participant input and relevant factors identified during the coarse of the study: TH 36 provides an essential connection within the Twin Cities seven county metropolitan area. TH 36 is a medium priority interregional corridor 8.5 miles long and is located entirely within the metropolitan area. The rationale for the designation of TH 36 from I -694 to TH 95 as a medium priority interregional corridor include its connection with the Stillwater area and its service as one of the major routes connecting with western Wisconsin. TH 36 also serves the adjacent communities of Stillwater, Oak Park Heights, Grant, Lake Elmo, Mahtomedi, Willernie, Pine Springs, and Oakdale. . This facility carries high volumes of commuter traffic and recreational/tourist traffic. Traffic volumes are expected to increase due to the level of continued growth in Stillwater and Oak Park Heights, which serve as the commercial activity center for the St. Croix Valley, and continued y growth in Western Wisconsin. The Technical Evaluation Committee (TEC) has established a vision for TH 36 as a corridor that attains IRC mobility goals and provides smooth, safe travel between I -694 and TH 95 in Stillwater. The corridor currently operates in the range of 45 to 48 mph during the peak P eriods, well below the 55 mph average peak hour operating speed goal. The vision will be achieved by minimizing the need for additional signals and implementing appropriate access control strategies through allowing g g or discouraging capital investments along the corridor. Investments should be staged according to demands on the corridor. g g Recommended Corridor Management Plan A range of alternatives have been identified and assessed based on a group of relevant factors identified during this study. A selected alternative that has been termed "Hybrid" is the selected alternative for the TH 36 Corridor Management Plan because it adequately meets the IRC performance goals in addition to the other relevant factors previously described. The future of the St. Croix River Crossing (SCRC) has implications on study area traffic volumes and corridor performance characteristics. For these reasons, two variations of the Hybrid Alternative have been identified that correlate with the two SCRC scenarios. Hybrid "A ": Assumes the new SCRC is in place. Characteristics include interchanges at Hilton Trail and Manning Avenue, overpasses at DeMontreville Trail, Lake Elmo Avenue and Oakgreen/Greeley, maintenance of two existing signals at Norel/Washington and Osgood in Oak Park Heights and reorientation of all direct property access to TH 36 via support roadways. TH 36 Corridor Management Plan Minnesota Department of Transportation Executive Summary • • • Hybrid "B ": Assumes the new SCRC is not in place. Major characteristics are similar to Hybrid "A" with the exception of the Oakgreen/Greeley crossing. The existing signal at this intersection would be maintained resulting in three total signals in the study area. Concept Plans for Hybrid "A" and Hybrid "B" are shown in the Appendix. Shared Strategies/Implementation Elements Commitment, participation, cooperation, and action by a Corridor Management Team can ensure the successful implementation of the TH 36 Corridor Management Plan over the 20 -year design horizon. To aid in achieving this goal, an implementation plan including shared strategies has been structured. Shared strategies have been identified in correlation with improvement plan elements. These elements are described below. Shared Strategies 1. Under the direction of Mn/DOT, form a TH 36 Corridor Management Team to ensure continual communications between project partners and momentum in the pursuit and implementation of TH 36 Corridor Management Plan projects. 2. Officially map the corridor. 3. Adopt the TH 36 Corridor Management Plan as part of comprehensive lans at county and municipal levels. P Y 4. Adopt Mn/DOT Access Management Guidelines for all study area roadways at state, county, and local levels in response to new developments. 5. Do not allow any new direct access on to TH 36 (private property or public streets). 6. Locate funding for mid -term implementation plan elements. 7. Conduct appropriate pre- design efforts /environmental documentation to implement mid -term implementation plan elements. These efforts should include detailed operational analysis including the weave between I -694 and the new CSAH 36 (Hilton Trail) interchange.. 8. Program, design, and construct short -term implementation plan elements. Level of Commitment Mn/DOT • Take a lead role in maintaining a TH 36 Corridor Management Team. • Coordinate TH 36 Corridor Management Plan with other study /design efforts in the corridor. • Locate funding for the TH 36 Corridor Management Plan projects. • Assist officially mapping the corridor. Washington County /Subarea Municipalities • Adopt a resolution endorsing the TH 36 Corridor Management Plan and a continued commitment to a working partnership with other involved agencies and municipalities. TH 36 Corridor Management Plan Minnesota Department of Transportation • Participate on a TH 36 Corridor Management Team. • Locate funding for TH 36 Corridor Management Plan projects. • Assist officially mapping the corridor. A graphic representation that summarizes the importance of cooperative participation by key study participants is shown in Figure 1. Implementation Plan Elements The implementation plan elements are shown graphically in Figure 2 and are listed below. 1. Officially map the corridor according to the Hybrid Alternative. 2. Develop an agreement/design for a 3/4 access intersection operation for the TH 36 /CSAH 17(Lake Elmo Avenue) intersection. 3. Ensure that new development plans adjacent to TH 36 will include supporting roadways that provide access to TH 36 via a public street identified with TH 36 access under the Hybrid Alternative. 4. Extend frontage road north of TH 36 westerly across the Gateway Trail to connect with CSAH 36 (Hilton Trail). 5. Close the Highlands Trail access to TH 36. 6. Close frontage road accesses north of TH 36 at Highlands Trail east of the Gatewa y Trail crossing. 7. Limit CR 13 (DeMontreville Trail) full access to TH 36 to right - in/right -out or 3 /a movements (no left out). 8. Construct supporting roadway segments adjacent to the south side of TH 36 to consolidate existing property access to TH 36. One roadway should either extend westerly from Keats include 3 y Avenue or include a /a movement consolidated access near the Lauseng Stone commercial property. The second roadway should consolidate existing driveway access on the south side of TH 36 compatible with the construction of a supporting roadway between the CSAH 17 (Lake Elmo Avenue) overpass and CSAH 15 (Manning Avenue) interchange. 9. Reconstruct frontage road connections north of TH 36 with CSAH 15 (Manning Avenue) to provide better separation with the signalized intersection. 10. Recently the portion of TH 36 in Oak Park Heights has received a grant under the IRC Partnership Study Program. This study will be a joint effort between Mn/DOT, Washington County, Stillwater, and Oak Park Heights to analyze in greater detail the local connections onto TH 36. The study will consider local land uses (existing and planned), safety, traffic flow patterns, and access issues. The study will use the Hybrid "A" and Hybrid "B" conceptual improvements as a starting point and may evaluate the need for interchanges at these locations. The study is expected to start in April 2001 and be concluded by April 2002. 11. Maintain signalized full access intersections at CSAH 15 (Manning Avenue), Norel/Washington Avenue 24 g A nue and CSAH 24 (Osgood Avenue) and possibly OakGreen/Greeley dependent on the scenario. SCRC scen P TH 36 Corridor Management Plan Minnesota Department of Transportation • May 1, 2001 David Beaudet, Mayor City of Oak Park Heights 14168 Oak Park Blvd N. PO Box 2007 Oak Park Heights, MN 55082 Dear Dave: As the time approaches for the close of my three year term on the planning commission I need to inform you that I will not seek re- appointment to the commission at this time. This has been a very interesting and rewarding position for me. The city and the commission have wrestled with many issues during these three years and I have been pleased to be involved in the process. It is time for a shift in focus for my community efforts and thus my decision on re- appointment. I will continue to follow the efforts of the commission and the city going forward and may step forward to become involved again in the future. Thank you for the opportunity to serve and thank you for the good work all of you are doing. • Best regards, �- -L VL l) 63 Ann M. Wasescha cc: George Vogt — Planning Commission Chair Danielson, Comm. Dev. Director